THE  QUERELLE  DES  ANCIENS  ET  DES  MODERNES 
AND  THE  CLASSICIST-ROMANTICIST 
BATTLE 


By 

CECILE  M.  BELL 

A.  B.  University  of  Illinois,  1919 


THESIS 

SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE 
DEGREE  OF  MASTER  OF  ARTS  IN  ROMANCE  LANGUAGES  IN 
THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  ILLINOIS,  1922 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/querelledesancieOObell 


TABLF  OF  CONTENTS 

Page 

I.  Introduction 1 

II.  Diderot 6 

III.  Perrault 11 

IV.  The  "QuerelleV 17 

V.  Fontenelle  and  the  ’’Querelle” 21 

VI.  Fenelon  and  the  Church .....25 

VII.  The  Mingling  of  Genre 33 

VIII.  Perfectibility 36 

IX.  Soileau 37 

X.  ”Les  Paralleles"  and  "Les  Memo ire  s ” of 

Perrault 45 

XI.  ”Les  Contes  de  Fees” 47 

XII.  The  Second  phase  of  the  ’’Querelle” .....51 

XIII.  Conclusion 52 

Bibliography • • 1 


' 


. 


THE  Q.UERELLE  DES  ANCIENS  ET  DES  MODERNES 


AND 

THE  CLASSICIST-ROMANTICIST  BATTLE 


Literary  controversies  of  greater  or  lesser  importance 
have  arisen  more  than  once  since  the  dawn  of  literature,  and  con- 
troversies there  are  likely  to  be  so  long  as  men  live,  and  write, 
and  think.  It  was  so  in  the  seventeenth  century  when  Desmarets  de 
Saint-Sorlin  produced  his  "Clevis",1  1657,  in  which  he  dared  sug- 
gest the  superiority  of  Christian  over  pagan  philosophy  as  a source 
of  literary  inspiration.  He  met  his  objectors,  among  them  Nicolas 
Boileau,  who  ridiculed  the  idea  of  Satan’s  possessing  any  value 
whatever  as  a character  in  literature.  Incidentally  it  is  worth 
remembering  that  Milton  was  just  then  finishing  his  great  Christian 
epic2  in  which  he  made  Satan  the  rival  of  Adam  for  the  position 
of  hero  of  the  story.  It  is  probable  that  Boileau  was  not  yet 
familiar  with  the  plan  of  the  "Paradise  Lost";  it  is  almost  cer- 
tain that  he  would  not  have  agreed  with  one  who  so  disregarded  the 
teachings  of  antiquity.  But  it  is  worth  remembering  that  this  idea, 
new  in  France,  was  already  being  used  in  England,  and  that,  by  the 

1LcJason,G.,  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Franqaise  ;.  590  Abry,  Audio 
Crouzet;  Histoire  Illustree  de  Litterature  Fran^aise,  p.  301. 

2Rigault,  H.;  Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des 
Modernes  p.  112. 

Lanson,  G.,  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Fran^aise  p.  590. 


■ 


2, 


genius  of  his  century.  Desmarets  was  old,  more  than  eighty  he 
was,  when  Boileau  hurled  himself  against  the  new  doctrine,  and 
he  died  before  the  dispute  which  he  had  provoked  assumed  any 
alarmning  proportions;  but  dying  he  let  fall  his  mantle  upon  the 
shoulders  of  Charles  Perrault1  who  entered  the  quarrel  with  even 
more  zeal  than  his  predecessor  had  done.  For  Perrault  was  impul- 
sive, and  apt,  and  young.  He  was  besides  well  able  to  carry  on 
a controversy  in  verse;  and  when  in  1687  he  read  before  the  aca- 
demy "Le  Siecle  de  Louis  le  Grand"  he  displayed  a boldness  of 
spirit  comparable  to  that  exhibited  in  the  presentation  of  "HernanjH" 
almost  a century  and  a half  later.  The  storm  burst,’  The  Querelle 
des  Anciens  et  des  Modernes  was  on,  and  leaders  hastened  to  de- 
clare their  allegiance  to  their  respective  parties.  Ostensibly 
the  quarrel  was  one  between  the  friends  and  foes  of  antiquity.  In 
reality  it  was  the  revolt  of  youth  against  the  fixity  and  dogma 
of  old  age.  It  was  the  protest  of  age  against  the  innovations 
and  progress  of  youth.  In  a broader  sense  it  represented  the  con- 
test between  two  spirits,  that  of  submission  to  the  past  and  that 


^■Herriot,  E,  Precis  de  1’Histoire  des  Lettres  Fran^aises  p.  558 
"Viens  defendre,  Perrault,  la  France  qui  t'appelle; 

Viens  defendre  avec  moi  cette  troupe  rebell e, 

Ce  ramas  d'ennemis  qui,  faibles  et  mutins, 

/ \ \ 

Preferent  a nos  chants  les  ouvrages  latins." 


. 


I 

. 


3 


of  free  examination  in  thought  and  independence  in  taste.1  The 

contest  was  repeated  in  the  nineteenth  century  when,  weary  with 

the  dull  routine  of  thought  of  the  age,  a few  bold  spirits  shook 

themselves  free  from  the  conventional  in  all  forms  of  art,  and 

declared  themselves  under  a new  banner,  that  of  Romanticism.  Not 

without  resemblances  are  these  two  revolutions,  separated  though 

they  be  by  more  than  a century  of  time,  and  this  relationship  we 

are  going  to  try  to  establish  in  this  paper. 

Indeed,  no  less  an  authority  than  M.  Rigualt  recognizes 

in  the  insurrection  of  Perrault  a precursor  of  the  romantic  re- 
2 

volution,  and  agrees  with  M.  Pierre  Leroux  that  the  ideas  of 
Perrault  and  those  of  the  romanticists  agree  in  their  insistence 
upon  the  liberation  of  the  human  spirit  and  the  emancipation  of 
taste.  M.  Leroux  goes  a step  farther,  and  establishes  a bond  of 
synpathy  between  "Les  Parallel es"  of  Perrault  and  "Le  Preface  de 
Cromwell”  of  Victor  Hugo.  Professor  Irving  Babbitt  sees  in  ro- 
manticism a revolt  against  this  same  formalism  which  dominated  the 

^Rigault,  H. , Oeuvres  Completes-  Vol . 1,  p.  219 

Brunetiere,  F.,  Involution  des  Genres  pp.  112-3. 

/ 

Bailly,  A.,  L'Ecole  Classique  Franpaise  p.  194 
^Rigault,  H.,  Oeuvres  Completes  - Vol.  1,  p.  271. 

^Rigault,  H.,  Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  dss  Modernes 
p.  483,  from  Leroux,  De  la  Loi  de  Continuite  qui  unit  le  XVIII9 
Siecle  au  XVIII®,  Revue  Encyclopedique,  1832, 


. 


. 


4. 

literature  of  the  seventeenth  century. x And  at  last  the  romanti- 
cists themselves  recognize  in  the  Modernes  of  the  seventeenth  cen~ 
tury  their  own  literary  ancestors.  Perhaps  M.  Rigault  defines 
best  the  relative  positions  of  the  two  schools.  "Le  romantisme", 
he  says,  "qui  proclamait  1 8 independance  absolue  du  gout,  crut 
faire  preuve  de  logique,  en  declarant  la  guerre  a l'antiquite: 
dans  un  manifeste  ou  il  etablissait  sa  genealogie,  il  annonca  qu' 
il  continuait  l8 oeuvre  d8 emancipation  commencee  par  Perrault,  et 
se  rattacha  resolument  aux  Modernes  du  XVII®  siecle".  Even 
Voltaire  attributed  to  the  seventeenth  century  the  cosmopolitan 
attitude  of  the  eighteenth.  "Nous  avons  perdu  de  vue" , said  he, 
"le  clocher  de  notre  village;  le  domains  de  l8 esprit  fran^ais, 
c’est  l'univers."3  Voltaire  did  not  attribute  this  revolution  to 
the  seventeenth  century,  but  he  did  recognize  the  influence  of 
those  people  who  enlarged  the  field  of  criticism,  and  revealed  the 
relationship  existing  between  all  products  of  the  spirit  of  which 
they  affirmed  the  progress.  The  revolution  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  and  again  in  the  nineteenth  came  in  response  to  a common 
impulse,4  a sympathetic  desire  to  expand,  to  depart  from  the  tra- 

^Babbitt  Irving;  Contemporary  Literature 

2Rigault,  H.,  Hi3toire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des 

Modernes  p,  483. 

5Ibid.  p.  275. 

4Stewart  and  Tilley;  The  Romantic  Movement  in  French  Literature 

p.  1. 


. 

. 


- 


. 


* , 


5, 


ditions  of  the  past,  to  exercise  the  right  of  'free  examination*, 
said  the  Modernss,  9 independence  in  taste  * , said  the  romanticists, 
and  both  schools  in  their  respective  infancies  seemed  equally  in- 
definite as  to  creed  and  goal.  But  in  one  purpose  they  were  agreec , 
these  two  rebel  schools.  They  had  in  common  the  ambition  to  neu- 
tralize, if  not  destroy,  the  influence  of  the  classicists  upon 
the  literature  of  the  times.  M.  Rigault,  more  conservative  than 
M.  Leroux,  sees  in  Perrault  a precursor  of  the  school  of  Diderot 
and  Grimm, ^ more  curious  perhaps,  and  more  accessible  to  new 
ideas;  but  as  a result  of  the  revolt  of  Perrault,  critics  arose  to 
dictate  to  music,  to  sculpture,  to  painting,  and  the  French 
spirit,  aroused  from  its  complacency,  reached  across  the  borders 
of  its  own  land,  and  took  unto  itself  customs  and  ideas  of  other 
countries.  And  this  foreign  influence  we  remember  as  one  of  the 
early  changes  registered  by  romanticism.  To  be  sure  Diderot  leads 
us  towards  the  school  of  realism,  towards  the  master,  Balzac;  but 
may  we  not  consider  this  very  movement  one  in  the  direction  of 
romanticism?  M.  Pellissier  has  written  at  some  length  upon  the 
realistic  element  in  the  romantic  school,  and  conversely  has  dis- 
cussed the  lack  of  realism  in  the  classicist.^  According  to  M. 
Pellissier  one  might  say  that  the  school  of  realism  represents  an 
exaggerated  form  of  one  phase  of  romanticism.  If  this  be  true  then 
we  may  agree  that  a step  toward  realism  is  one  in  the  direction  of 
romanticism. 

^■Rigault,  H.;  Oeuvres  Completes  - Vol.  1,  p.  293. 

^Pellissier,  G.;  Realisms  du  Romantisme. 


. 


6 


II 

Diderot  then  is  a link  connecting  the  classic  and  roman- 
tic schools,  breaking  away  as  he  does  from  the  traditional 
character  of  the  classical  drama  and  depicting  character  ae  it 
is  seen  in  real  life.  The  innovations  of  Diderot  are  significant 
in  that  they  indicate  the  trend  of  literature  which  was  passing 
from  a psychological  to  a physical  realism  which  developed  in  the 
novels  of  Le  Sage,  of  Marivaux,  and  of  Rousseau,  and  which,  as 
one  critic  has  said,  " culminated  in  the  local  color  of  the  Roman- 
tics".^ Despite  the  author's  encyclopedic  outlook  upon  life,  one 
finds  in  the  works  of  Diderot  many  passages  which  indicate  a ro- 
mantic feeling  for  nature.  Chateaubriand,  for  instance,  might 

easily  have  written:  "Vous  avez  vu  csnt  fois  le  coucher  du  soleil 

/ 

et  le  lever  des  etoiles,  vous  avez  entendu  la  campagne  retenir  du 

chant  eclatant  des  oiseaux;  mais  qui  de  vous  a senti  que  c'etait 

2 

le  bruit  du  jour  qui  rendait  le  silence  de  la  nuit  charmante"? 

Like  many  a prominent  romanticist.  Constant,  Rousseau,  Lamartine, 
Diderot  loved  nature  because  it  imposed  upon  him  no  semblance  of 
restraint. 3 His  "Salons"  contain  some  of  the  leading  ideas  ad- 
vanced later  in  "Le  Preface  de  Cromwell",  and  what  Hugo  wrote  con- 
cerning literature  Diderot  had  already  written  for  painting.4 
Diderot  was  not,  strictly  speaking,  a forebear  of  romanticism,  for 
he  left  no  masterpiece  to  which  one  may  point  as  the  turning  point 

^Finch  and  Peer;  Origins  of  French  Romanticism  p.  6. 

2Ibid.  p.  7. 

3Finch  and  Peer;  Origins  of  French  Romanticism  p.  7, 

4Finoh  and  Peer;  Origins  of  French  Romanticism,  pp.  14-15. 


7 


of  the  century  between  classicism  and  romanticism;  but  he  did 
possess  the  romantic  mind,  and  he  advocated  certain  principles 
which  were  later  to  characterize  the  great  school  of  Rousseau. 

Like  Rousseau  he  was  an  individualist,  a lover  of  nature,  and  a 
man  of  sentiment.  He  was  one  of  the  early  preachers  of  that 
exoticism  which  came  later  to  associate  itself  definitely  with  the 
school  of  Chateaubriand,  of  Lamartine,  and  of  Hugo.  He  repudiat- 
ed utterly,  classic  tradition,  and  he  succeeded  in  coloring  the 
thought  of  his  age  with  his  intense  feeling  for  the  true  in  art.^ 

It  was  Diderot  himself  who  looked  forward  to  the  coming  of  the 
romanticists,  and  prophesied  the  date  of  their  appearance.  "Quand 
verra-t-on  naltre  des  poetes"?  said  he.  "Ce  sera  apres  le  temps 
de  desastre  et  de  grands  malheurs,  lorsque  les  peuples  harasses 

i / 

commenceront  a respirer.  Alors  les  imaginations,  ebranlees  par 
des  spectacles  terribles,  peindront  des  choses  inconnues  a ceux 
qui  n'en  ont  ete  les  temoins".  We  believe  the  romanticists  right 
in  claiming  Diderot  as  a near  relative,  if  not  a direct  ancestor. 
Certainly  his  ideas  corresponded  exactly  to  many  of  the  theories 
which  attached  themselves  to  the  revolutionists  of  the  nineteenth 
century. 

It  was  Victor  Hugo  who  called  romanticism  "le  liberalisms 
/ 2 

en  litterature. " To  this  definition  critics  have  offered  the  ob- 

^Finch  and  Peer;  Origins  of  French  Romanticism  pp.  14,  15. 

2Ibid.  p.  15. 

SPellissier,  G.;  Le  Realism©  du  Romantisme  p.  1,  cited  from  "Le 
Preface  de  Cromwell". 


. 


8 


jection  that  it  is  purely  negative,  and  includes  no  plan  for  the 
disposition  of  the  freedom  for  which  the  romanticist  so  vehement- 
ly clamors.1  The  romanticists,  to  be  sure,  substituted  no  disci- 
pline for  the  classic  rules  which  they  repudiated,  and  the  lead- 
ing romanticists  differed,  as  did  the  Modernes  in  the  ancient 
quarrel,  often  among  themselves;  Bayle,  for  instance,  could  never 
accept  Perrault's  favorite  theory  of  "perf ectibilite" , Mme  de 
Sta'el  could  not  comprehend  Chateaubriand's  passion  for  coloring 
everything  with  Christianity;  but  there  are  attributes  peculiar 
to  the  school  - attributes  which  characterize  it  not  only  as  the 

enemy  of  classicism,  but  which  lend  it  certain  precepts  by  means 

2 

of  which  it  may  be  recognized.  Romanticism,  being  essentially 
subjective  attempts  to  restore  to  literature  some  degree  of  senti- 
ment and  imagination;  but  it  does  something  more.  If  we  are  to 
accept  the  creed  as  interpreted  by  Mme  de  Stael,  by  Rousseau,  and 
by  Chateaubriand,  romanticism  attempts  to  establish  truth  and 
nature  in  literature,  and  on  this  side  it  approaches  the  school  of 
real ism. ^ 

The  romanticists,  like  the  Modernes,  were  not  without 
admiration  for  the  French  masters  of  classicism,  masters  like 
Racine,  Corneille,  and  Moliere;  but  they  could  not  accept  classic- 
ism as  represented  by  Boileau,  and  La  Fontaine  who  pretended  to 
follow  nature  in  imitating  the  ancient  poets.  As  a matter  of  fact 

IPellissier,  G.  ; Le  Realisms  du  Roman tisme  p.  2. 

2Ibid.,p.  4. 

3Ibid,  p.  6. 


9 


it  was  in  the  name  of  nature  that  the  romanticists  repudiated  the 
doctrine  of  classicism.1 2 3  The  contention  of  the  romanticist  was 
that  the  classicist  painted  nature  neither  directly  nor  entirely; 
that  his  fondness  for  imitations  led  him  away  from  the  actual  as- 
pects of  nature,  and  made  of  him  an  imitator  of  an  imitator. 
Critics  discussing  this  characteristic  of  the  classic  school,  re- 
call the  sermons  of  Bossuet  which  gradually  lose  their  element 

of  realism  as  they  come  more  and  more  under  the  influence  of 
2 

classicism.  Boileau,  himself,  has  supressed  in  his  later  writ- 
ings what  promised  to  be  a faculty  for  seeing  the  realistic  in 
the  world  about  him.  M,  Pellissier  finds  in  the  "Satires*  of 
Boileau  proof  for  his  assertion  that  the  earlier  works  of  this 
disciple  of  classicism  contain  occasional  passages  of  pure  real- 
ism. 3 

"Deux  assiettes  suivaient,  dont  I’une  etait  ornee 
D'une  langue  en  ragout,  de  persil  couronnee, 

L’ autre,  d’un  godiveau  tout  brule  par  dehors, 

Dont  un  beurre  gluant  inondait  tous  les  bords;"^ 
and  again  he  quotes  from  the  "Chants"; 

1Pell  issier,  G.  : Le  Realisme  du  Romantisme  p.  15 

2Ibid,  p.  19. 

3Ibid,  p.  20. 

^Boileau;  Satire  III,  Vol.  49  et  suiv. 


. 


. 


. 


' * 


■ 


10 


✓ ' 

"....Le  prelat,  muni  d'un  dejeuner. 

Dormant  d'un  ledger  somme,  attendait  le  diner. 

La  jeunesse  en  sa  fleur  brill e sur  son  visage; 

Son  menton  sur  son  sein  descend  a double  etage, 

Et  son  corps,  r&masse  dans  sa  courts  grosseur, 

- - .1 

Fait  gemir  les  coussins  sous  sa  molle  epaisseur." 

In  other  words  Boileau  sacrificed  his  own  personality  to  the  disci- 
pline of  the  seventeenth  century  which  refused  to  tolerate  a sug- 

o 

gestion  of  realism.  To  the  ancients,  imitating  nature  meant 
imitating  the  antique  version  of  nature;  but  fortunately  there 
were  in  the  century  those  who  protested  against  this  interpretation 
of  nature,  understanding  as  they  did  that  nature  could  never  be 
copied  correctly  from  imitators;  that  so  long  as  writers  imitated 
the  imitators  of  nature  they  could  produce  nothing  more  than  an 
artificial  effect.  And  one  does  not  read  far  into  the  classic 
literature  of  the  seventeenth  century  without  finding  a great  deal 
of  this  poor  imitation  which,  left  to  itself,  was  destined  to  des- 
troy every  spark  of  originality  before  it  dared  appear. 


^Boileau,  Chant  ler  Vol.  63  et  Suiv. 
^Pellissier  G.,  Le  Realisms  du  Romantisme. 


11 


111 

Charles  Perrault  was  well  equipped  to  lead  the 
fight  against  the  Ancients.  In  the  first  place  he  was  young, 
and  with  the  audacity  characteristic  of  youth  he  dared  express 
himself  when  a man  of  more  mature  judgment  might  have  hesitated. 

In  fact  Perrault  seems  to  have  derived  some  particular  satisfaction 
from  entertaining  an  idea  contrary  to  current  opinion.  This  anti- 
pathy towards  author ity  he  evidenced  in  his  early  childhood  when, 

incensed  at  the  master’s  command  to  cease  talking,  he  left  the 

1 

school,  and  refused  resolutely  to  return.  Instead,  he  with  his 

companion  in  the  escapade,  esxablijhed  outside  the  pales  of  the 

school,  their  own  study  where  they  worked  for  two  years.  At 

school  it  seems  that  Perrault  followed  tne  Dent  of  his  own 

nature,  learning  a little  of  many  things,  and  specializing  in 

none.  Perhaps  the  early  training  of  the  child  may  have  inculcated 

in  him  those  ideas,  modern,  as  they  came  to  he  called,  and  may 

have  given  him  courage  to  advance  ideas  ccritrary  to  those  of  his 

2 

century.  He  sprang  from  sturdy  bourgeois  stock,  and  unlike 
BoileaUj  had  the  good  fortune  of  beirg  reared  in  the  heart  of 
a devoted  family.  He  was  taught  to  read  by  his  mother  , and  it 
is  not  unlikely  that  her  personality  may  have  influenced  the 
boy's  attitude  toward  women,  an  attitude  reflected  in  his 

1.  La  Croix,  P.  Memoires  de  Charles  Perrault  p.  3t4 
Leschanel,  E. , Le  Roman tisme  des  Classiques  p.  237 

f \ 

2.  Albert,  Paul;  La  Litterature  Pran^aise  au  XVIIe  Siecle  p.363 

3.  Ibid.  p.  364 


12 


1 

answer  to  .Soileau's  "Satire  sur  Femmes"*  I say  that  it  is  not 
surprising  that  his  feeling  toward  women  should  he  more  generous 
than  that  of  Boileau,  whose  own  childhood  was  so  sad  and  lonely. 
Perrault  grew  up  unfettered  by  the  restraint  imposed  upon 
Boileau  from  babyhood.  It  is  a significant  fact  that  while 
Boileauiwas  leafing  his  models  of  antiquity,  Perrault  with  his 
two  brothers  was  busy  composing  a parody  upon  the  sixth  boo* 
of  the/teneid.  Nor  was  Charles  Perrault  untrue  to  the  family 
type  in  his  antipathy  to  the  restraint  suggested  by  t he  tradition- 
al and  conventional  in  work  or  play.  For  the  Perrault  brothers, 
four  of  them  in  all,  are  represented  as  free  spirits,  original, 

resentful  of  traditions,  enemies  of  routine,  eager  for  novelty, 

2 

adventurous,  bold,  and  modern.  Perrault  loved  his  own  century. 

' X 

11  "etait  un  homme  a remercier  Dieu  chaque  soir  del' avoir  fait 

naltre  en  France,  au  XVIIe  siecle,  pour  etre  temoin  des 

3 

merveilles  infinies  du  regne  de  Louis  XIV."  The  intellect  of 
Perrault  favors  always  the  new,  and  opposes  the  traditional. 

It  was  the  ambition  of  this  man  to  free  poetry  from  the  yoke 
of  imitation;  and  even  before  "Le  Siecle  de  Louis  le  Grand" 
appeared  he  had  published  his  "Saint  Paulin",  1686,  which  is 
entirely  at  variance  with  the  idea  of  religion  entertained  by 
antiquity.  Perrault  read  the  story  of  the  conversion  of  the 
young  Jew,  and  saw  in  it  the  history  of  the  struggle  of  Christ- 
ianity against  paganism.  Paul,  reared  in  a pagan  home  had  been 

1.  Albert,  Paul;  La  Litterature  Frangaise  au  XVIIe  siecle  p.  364 

2.  Leschanel  , 15.;  Le  Romantisme  des  Classiques  p.  238 

3.  Albert,  Paul;  La  Litterature  Frangaise  au  XVIIe  Siecle  p.563 


13 


taught  honestly  to  despise  and  persecute  the  disciples  of  the  new 
faith; but  he  received  a marvelous  revelation  of  light, and  renounc 
ing  posit  ion, wealth, and  power, he  pursued  the  ideal  set  up  by  the 

Christian  church, and  died  a martyr  for  his  faith. To  perrault  the 

1 

story  meant  the  dawn  of  modernism  after  the  darkness  of  the  past. 

In  the  preface  of  !!  Saint -Paul  in,  he  says  that  heaven  and  hell, 

angels  and  demons  are  all  worthy  of  the  attention  of  the  poets. 

This  preface, itself .exemplifies  the  independence  of  taste, and  the 

disregard  for  tradition  which  make  his  works  the  subject  of  more 

2 

comment  than  does  the  subject  matter  itself. A oont emporary - said 
of  Perrault  that  all  of  his  writings  had  a certain  novelty, a 
certain  origionality  peculiar  to  each  particular  product ion; that 
he  was  guided  by  his  own  ideas  which  were  unfettered  by  the  in- 
fluence of  ancient  models; that  when  he  aimed  to  portray  passion 

he  sought  it  not  in  books, but  looked  directly  into  the  human 
1 

heart .When  his  friends  suggested  that  he  sacrifice  his  idea  of  a 

✓ 

certain  heroine , Therasie, to  the  taste  of  the  public, he  refused, 
and  presented  this  character  as  he  believed  her  to  be  rather 

d.S 

than'his  readers  would  have  liked  her  to  be. He  felt  that  a writer 

should  not  conform  to  the  customs  of  his  century  when  doing  so 

3 

involved  the  misrepresentation  of  facts. He  believed  that  the 
customs  of  the  time  represented  by  the  play  might  differ  from 
those  of  the  time  of  the  author  without  offending  any  of  the 

✓ a \ 

1.  Albert  ,p.  ;La  Litterature  Franjaise  a$a  X5TJI  Siecle  268 

2. Rigault,  H. , Histoire  de  La  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des 
Moderns s p.114 


3. Ibid.  p.  115 


14 

rules  of  art. These  are  some  of  the  things  which  perrault  discussed 

in  his  preface  to  "Saint  Paulin”, and  some  of  them  savor  strongly 

of  the  doctrine  of  Hugo. This  idea  of  the  time  element  in  the  drama, 

Hugo  would  have  sanctioned  most  heartily. Perrault  then^  believed 

that  Christianity  afforded  a richer  source  of  poetic  inspiration 

1 

than  did  pagan  superstition.lt  was  one  of  the  foundation  stones 
of  romanticism, this  Christian  faith, without  which  the  core  of 
Chateaubriand's  work  would  be  gone.sFe  would  not  say  that  Perrault 
attained  the  heights  of  faith  experienced  by  the  poets  of  romanti- 
cism,who  entertained  a more  ethereal , perhaps  a more  exaggerated 
conception  of  the  idea. But  we  do  believe  that  perrault' s adoption 
of  the  Christian  faith  as  a literary  subject  opened  the  way  for 
those  who  later  made  it  the  foundation  for  all  literature. 

Certainly  it  was  a departure  from  the  classic  ideal, and  was  the 
very  idea  which  Boileau  had  so  recently  ridiculed in  Desmarets. 
"Saint  Paulin"as  a drama  is  not  a succesful  piece  of  art, but  it 

has  proven  interesting  to  students  of  romanticism  who  see  in  it 

✓ 

the  theory  put  forth  in  "Les  Martyrs", and  in  "Le  Genie  du 
2 

Christianisme".It  is  the  idea  expressed  in  the  "Clovis"  which 
enjoyed  no  greater  success  than  did  "Saint  Paulin". The  difference 
in  popularity  lies  in  the  fact  that  Chateaubriand  possessed  the 
genius  which  was  withheld  from  Perrault  and  Desmarets. 

But  lack  of  genius  did  not  daunt  the  soul  of  perrault 

1. Saint e-Beuve , C.A. ,Nouveaux  Lundis,vol.l,p.306 
Sainte-Beuve , C .A. , Causeries  du  Lundi  vol.5,p.265 
2.  Albert,  Paul;  La  Litteraturo  Pran^aise  au  XVI I e Siecle  p.  368 


' . 


■+  ■■ 


« 

. 


, 


. 


■ 

■ . 


f 

• 1 


I.  . * • . 


• • - ■ 


, i 


' . / 


, 


f . 


* 


15 


He  went  serenely  on  nursing  his  belief  in  human  progress  which 
he  formulated  Hater  in  "Le  Siecle  de  Louis  le  Grand",  inconsistent 
he  believed  the  argument  that  the  ancients  had  attained  perfection 
in  their  day;  for  men  of  succeeding  ages  having  the  experience 
of  antiquity  upon  which  to  build  should  necessarily  be  more  per- 
fect than  their  ancestors.  And  although  his  idea  was  not  express- 
1 

ed  elegantly,  nor  even  poetically,  he  did  set  forth  principles 
and  ideas  which  succeeding  generations  adopted,  and  expressed 
in  true  poetry.  M.  Albert  believes  this  to  be  the  first  appear- 
ance of  the  law  of  progress,  "le  reve  de  tant  d' esprit  superieurs 

/ / X / 

et  de  coeurs  genereux,  la  chimere  de  l'abbe  de  Saint-Pierre,  la 

supreme  illusion  de  Condorcet  mourant,  de  Jean  Reynaud  et  de 
2 

tant  d'autres".  Perrault  was  doubtless  the  boldest  figure  in 

t he "Querelle  aes  Anciens  et  des  Modernes".  He  was  a man  of 

new  ideas,  of  inventions,  a man  looking  always  toward  the  future 

3 

with  coixfidence  in  his  own  generat  ion.  "Son  imagination  et  sa 

raison  combat tent;  c'est  l’heure  du  crepuscule  qui  f init  et  de 

4 

l'aube  blanch issan  te".  He  resented  the  idea,  prevalent  in  hia 

time,  that  his  own  century  could  never  hope  to  rival  that  of 

the  ancients;  and  in  his  enthusiasm  he  went  farther,  and  expressed 

/ p ^ 

1.  Albert,  Paul;  La  Litter ature  Franpaise  au  XVII  Siecle  p.  365 

2.  Ibid.  p.  375 

3.  Sainte-Beuve,  G.  A.  : Causeries  du  Lundi : Vol.  5 p.  255 

4.  Sainte-Beuve,  C.  A.  : Nouveaux  Lundis  Vol.  1 p 314 


16 


the  belief  that  the  century  of  Louis  the  Great  was  superior  to 

1 

that  of  antiquity  in  its  knowledge  of  fine  arts  and  belles-lettres. 
Perrault  it  was  who  broke  with  tradition  and  proclaimed  free 

2 

examinat  ion  in  literature  and  absolute  independence  in  taste; 

for  his  ideas  of  art  were  less  dogmatic  than  were  those  of  the 

/ 

ancients.  Poetry  to  him  was  "une  peinture  agreable  qui  donne 

un  corps,  une  ame,  du  sentiment,  et  de  la  vie  aux  choses  aui  n'en 
3 

ont  point."  It  is  imagination,  in  other  words,  which  removes 

Perrault  from  the  ranks  of  the  Ancients;  and  as  we  shall  see 

presently  it  is  through  his  works  of  the  imaginat  ion  that  Perrault 

lives  for  us,  and  not  by  virtue  of  his  works  of  philosophy  or 

criticism.  A little  more  than  a century  later  another  school 

attempted  to  revive  the  imaginative  element  in  literature.  When 

the  romanticists  turned  their  attention  to  the  metaphysical  they 

indeed  gave  a soul,  a body,  a touch  of  sentiment  to  things  that 

had  none  of  them,  and  Perrault ' s own  definition  of  poetry 

/ 

returns  to  us  as  we  read  again  the  "Meditations"  of  Lamartine. 
Nothing  tangible  in  the  form  of  subject  natter  do  they  offer  us, 
and  yet  one  feels  that  out  of  somewhere  the  author  has  captured 
an  idea  which  he  has  clothed  with  a new  body. 

p * 

1.  Lanson,  G.;  Ghoix  de  Lettres  de  XVII  Siecle  p428 

Sainte-  Beuve,  G.  A.  Nouveaux  Lundis  Vol.  1 p.  303 

2.  Rigault,  H. ; Oeuvres  Completes,  Vol.  1 p.  219 

3.  Ibid.  Vol.  1.  p.  210 


17 


IV 

"Le  Sie  cle  de  Louis  le  Grand then  was  the  signal 

* 1 

for  the  beginning  of  hostilities  between  the  two  factions.  It 

E 

is  a humorous  picture  that  Perrault  draws  of  the  academy — 

Boilhau  uneasy  throughout  the  reading,  growling  from  t ime  to 
time,  and  at  last  flinging  himself  from  the  assembly,  unable 
longer  to  endure  the  outrage  perpetrated  upon  the  academy,  and 
upon  the  ancient  models  by  this  impuaent  young  rebel.  One 
senses  the  satisfaction,  the  amusement  that  perrault  experienced 
during  this  proceedure  even  though  he  gives  us  no  elaborate 
details  of  the  affair.  Perrault  even  at  the  most  critical  points 
in  the  quarrel  seems  to  have  remembered  that  he  was  a gentle- 
man, and  he  has  recorded  against. him  none  of  the  vile  epithets 
used  by  his  oponents  in  tne  quarrel.  "Le  Siecle  de  Louis  le 
Grand"  he  followed  by  "Les  paralleles  des  Aneiens  et  des  Mod erne a" 
containing  the  core  of  the  cult  of  the  new  schooli  and  destined 
to  widen  the  gap  bet  ween  the  ancient  and  modern  factions.  The 

N 

Thesis  of  "Les  Paralleles"  is  progress.  If  experience  counts  for 
anything  in  the  history  of  the  race,  and  Perrault  believes  that 
it  does  count,  then  by  virtue  of  the  age  of  its  century  the 
literature  of  the  moderns  should  excel,  that  of  the  ancients, 

\ i ^ 

1.  Brunet  ie re— £r Evolution  des  Genres  p.  115 

/ 

Lansom;  Histoire  de  La  Litter ature  prangaise  p.  150 

✓ 

E.  Lacroix,  Paul;  Memo i re  s de  Charles  Perrault  p*  131 
3.  Abry,  Audio,  Cruuzet;  Histoire  Illustree  de  la  Litterature 


franchise  p.  303 


18 


that  in  all  forms  of  art,  in  architecture  and  in  painting  as  well 

as  in  literature , technique , may  he  perfected .perfect ibilite"  to 

perrault  is  a matter  of  growth,  and  the  very  age  of  the  century 

leads  him  to  believe  that  the  works  of  the  Modernes  "executes  avec 

une  pleine  connaissance  et  une  longue  habitude, sont  plus  parfaits 

1 

que  les  anciens,  sortis  de  mains  encore  novices'JIn  architecture, 
in  painting,in  eloquence, in  poet ry ,Perraultestablishes  two  stand- 
ards,those  that  please  at  all  times  and  places, and  those  that 
are  relative , pleasing  certain  persons  in  certain  times  and  places. 
Questions  of  the  true  and'' false , of  the  straight  and  the  crooked, 
may  be  decided  for  all  time;but  beauty , grace , deformity  are  relative 
terms, and  are  constituents, all, of  that  something  which  one  calls 

taste. And  taste  itself  is  a relative  term  varying  with  the  charac- 

2 

ter  of  the  critic, and  the  age  in  which  he  lives. Perrault  is  not 
particularly  interested  in  the  style  oi  an  authorja  translation 
to  him  is  as  valuable  -to  him-  as  the  original  so  long  as  it  pre- 
serves the  thought  of  the  author. And  he  believes  that  one  finds 
among  modern  writers  delicate  shades  of  passion  and  sentiment 
which  the  ancients  were  quite  incapable  of  port raying. Much  of 
this  reasoning  we  meet  again  in  "Le  preface  de  Cromwell  lT  Hugo 
lived  later  than  Perrault ;he  lived  at  a time  more  propitious  for 
the  advancement  of  his  ideas .And, above  all, he  possessed  the  genius 

which  permitted  him  to  express  his  creed  in  a telling  way.3ut  the 

/ 

author  of  "Le  Preface  de  Cromwell”believed  as  did  the  Modernes 

1 .Riga ult , H. ; Oeuvres  Completes  Vol.l,p.l91 
2. Ibid. ,Vol.l,pp. 199-200 
3. Ibid. , Vol .1 , p . 207 


19 


that  taste  in  literature  was  relative^  and  that  it  could  not  remain 

fixed  through  the  centuries. Hugo  objected  to  a verse  form  that 

failed  to  carry  properly  the  thought  of  the  author  even  though  it 

might  be  the  form  thitherto  recognized  as  the  favored  one. Each 

epoch, has  its  particular  idea  and  it  must  necessarily  have  its 

1 

own  language  for  expressing  that  idea. And  yet  Hugo  was  not  a 
slovenly  writer. On  the  contrary  he  was  one  of  the  most  careful 
writers  that  Prance  has  ever  produced. And  it  seems  that  perrault, 
far  from  advocating  carelessness  in  diction, was  trying  in  his  day 
to  bring  about  the  very  structural  change , advocated  by  Victor 
Hugo  in  the  nineteenth  century. ’Vhy  do  we  say  this?  Because  both 
Perrault  and  Hugo  believed  in  purity  of  expression,but  believed 
that  purity  of  expression  might  change  from  age  to  age, and  that 
it  might  as  easily  originate  with  an  author  of  a later  age  as 
with  one  belonging  to  the  ancient  order. 

s 

This  idea  of  "perfect ibilite "is  the  same  as  that 
me  2 

advanced  by  MIuSde  Stael  in  the  succeeding  century . Indeed  we 

v 

remember  the  theme  of  her  philosophy  as  the  progress  of  the  human 

spirit. She  too  carried  the  idea  into  literature  and  in  "de  la 

/ 

Litterature"  she  attempted  to  examine  the  influence  of  litera- 
ture, of  law, and  of  religion; and  this  was  the  project  that  perrault 
was  attempting  to  further  when  he  attacked  the  fixity  of  the 
classic  ideals  and  purpose s.l/llede  Stael  believed  with  Perrault 

1. Hugo.V. ;Oeuvres,Vol.24,p.27 

✓ 

2. Lanson,G. ;Histoire  de  Litterature  pranjaise  p.592 

3 . Sorel , A.  ,I.imede  Stael  p.81 


20 


that  the  moderns  were  superior  to  the  ancients  by  virtue  of  the 
age  of  their  century. We  must  admit  certain  weaknesses  in  this 

-v 

theory  of  "perf ectibilite  applied  to  literature. Both  Perrault 
me  • • 

and  M de  Stael  failed  to  take  account  of  the  fact  that  literary 
qualities  are  not  transmitted  from  one  generation  to  another  as 
are  physical  charact eristics;andthis  same  flaw, occurring  in  the 
arguments  of  the  two  writers , emphasizes  again  the  sympathy  exist- 
ing between  the  two  schools  which  they  represent yperf ectibilite” 
and”progre3s”were  words  that  were  to  influence  strongly  the 
literature  of  the  century  following  Perrault. 

And  yet  Perrault  did  not  foresee  the  extent  of  the 
influence  of  this, his  protest  against  the  authority  of  the  Ancients 
For  one  thing  the  quarrel  was  one  between  Paris  and  Some, and  Eng- 
lish and  German  models  were  not  considered  by  either  party  in  the 
controversy.Foreign  influences  did  not  operate  in  the  seventeenth 
century, and  Perrault , dissatisfied  as  he  was  with  the  dogma  and 
conventions  of  antiquity, did  not  dream  of  the  big  factor  that 
was  to  free  French  literature  from  the  restraint  of  classicism; 

and  that  factor  was  the  entrance  of  cosmopolitanism  into  the 

1 

literature  of  the  country.  But  the  revolt  of  Perrault  was  the 
opening  wedge  of  discontent  which  left  free  the  way  for  the  en- 
trance of  ideas  from  other  lands. And  just  as  the  rebellion  of 
our  own  forefathers  contained  the  embryo  of  a new  nation  so  the 
revolution  of  the  Modernes  enclosed  the  germ  of  a new  movement 
which  for  two  centuries  was  to  divide  the  art  of  the  world. 


l.Texte J#  ; Origines  du  Cosmopolittisme  p.16 


21 


In  the  development  of  romanticism  cosmopolitanism  was  an  important 

me  .1 

factor. M de  Stael  during  her  periods  of  exile  learned  to  under- 
stand,and  to  love  England, Switzerland, and  Germany . Chateaubriand 
and  Saint t^Pi err e,  as  a result  of  their  travels  were  impelled  to 
write  of  the  strange  America  beyond  the  Atlantic. And  Rousseau, 
end  Constant,  and  Senancour,  all  looked  beyond  the  boundaries  of 

their  own  land,§nd  found  settings  for  their  most  prominent  works 

1 

in  Scotland, in  Italy, in  Switzerland.  This  influence, I say,  was  not 

anticipated  by  Perrault, and  yet, as  we  mentioned  above, it  was 

romanticism  itself  which  recognized  its  debt  to  this  leader  of 

2 

the  revolution  of  the  seventeenth  century, 

V 

In  the  quarrel  Fontenelle  ranged  himself  on  the  side 
3 

of  the  Modernes.and  in  "les  Digressions  sur  les  Anciens  et  les 

Modernes'The  repeated  the  idea  of  progress  already  expressed  by 
4 

Perrault.  Mr. Babbit. is  inclined  to  rate  him  above  Perrault  as  an- 

important  leader  in  the  modern  movement . Certain  it  is  that  he  did 

broaden  Perrault’ s conception  of  progress  by  including  in  it  his 

3 

own  theory  of  climates. Briefly,  the  theory  of  climates  tee. ches 
that, other  things  being  equal, men  profit  by  the  experience 
acquired  by  the  past  ages, but  that  exterior  circumstances , war , 
climate, pestilence, may  operate  to  prevent  the  maturity  of  any 

1. Texte j J. ;Origines  du  Cosmopolitisms  p.242 

2. Rigault,H. ;Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des  Modernes 

3. Ibid. , Oeuvres  Completes  Vol.l, p.427  p.483 

Doumic, C.R. ;Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Franpaise  p.368 

4.Lanson,  G.;Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Franpaise  p.592 


faculty  in  any  particular  age; that  nature  is  able  to  produce 

great  men  in  all  ages, hut  that  man's  reaction  toward  the  forces 

of  nature  is  affected  by  his  particular  climatic  environment. 

Contrary  to  the  classic  idea , Font enelle  teaches  that  man  will 

never  degenerate , but  appropriating  always  the  experience  of  the 

1 

preceding  age  will  go  on  towardsperf ection.  "Modertt"is  to  him  a 

relative  term, and  he  ventures  the  opinion  that  at  one  time  the 

Latins  may  have  been  called  moderns, and  that  they  became  ancients 

only  when  a great  distance  in  time  separated  them  from  the 

centuries  which  followed. And  just  so  he  sees  the  Modernes  of  his 

own  time  classed  as  Ancients  by  the  scholars  of  the  future. And 

again, just  as  the  Latin  period  produced  a literature  which  came 

to  be  pronounced  superior  to  that  of  the  more  ancient  Greeks, 

so  the  literature  of  the  seventeenth  century  will  be  preferred 

2 

to  that  of  either  Rome  or  Greece. All  this  reminds  us  once  more 
^ me 

of  M de  Stael  who  set  forth  this  very  idea  for  the  romantic 
school. One  cannot  read  ,fde  la  Lit terature "without  recognizing 
bits  of  the  creed  of  these  progressive  spirits  of  the  seventeenth 
century. 

More  than  once  in  the  "Ligre8sions"of  Fontenelle 
the  author  shows  himself  to  be  less  coldly  scientific  than  he 
professed .Perhaps  his  appreciation  for  the  beautiful  may  have 

l.PontenellejLigressions  sur  les  Anciens  et  les  Modernes ,p.lS4-7 
2. Ibid. ;p.l95 

/ 

3 .Lanson,G.Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Francaise  p.626 


23* 


been  a note  of  warning  presaging  the  awakening  of  that  sensibilite* 
which  was  to  find  its  true  place  deep  in  the  heart  of  romanticism. 
Fontenelle, t o be  sure, did  not  recognize  this  feeling, this  passion 
for  the  beautiful  as  anything  except  a weak  spot  in  his  consti- 
tution. There  is  a bit  of  pathos, a bit  of  humor, too, in  this 

great  man's  confession  of  his  one  passion, "un  peu  de  faiblesse 

1 

pour  ce  qui  est  beau".  It  was  Fontenelle , too, who  receiving  into 

the  academy  the  successor  of  La  Motte  said  "On  lit  les  Anciens 

2 

par  devoir; on  lit  les  Modernes  par  plaisir".  The  romanticists 

later  claimed  this  virtue  for  their  school, and  attempting  to  define 

the  products  of  this  later  school, St endahl  designated  its  work 
3 

as  the  literary  form  which  gave  the  most  pleasure.  The  definition 
is  not  flawless; it  is  as  indefinite  as  is  the  genre  which  it 
attempts  to  catalogue , but  coming  from  representatives  of  two  differ- 
ent centuries  these  statements  interest  us  ,for  they  indicate 
another  bond  of  sympathy  between  the  ideals  of  the  Modernes  of 
the  one  century, and  the  romanticists  of  the  other.  And  so  we  find 
this  strong  character , Fontenelle , casting  his  influence  on  the  side 

of  the  youthful  Perrault .preparing  and  announcing  the"def init ion  of 

4 

indefinite  progress".  More  virile  the  conviction  had  grown  with 

LImede  Stael,but  we  must  not  forget  that  this  idea  of  progress, 

/ 

of  perf ectibilite  had  been  launched  at  the  time  of  Perrault . Who 
can  say  what  strength  of  conviction  the  Modernes  might  have  shown 
had  they  lived  a century  later? 

1. Lanson,G;Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Franpaise  p.  626 

2. Rigault ,H. ;Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des  Modernes  p. 
3. Stendahl, Racine  et Shakespeare ; p.33 

4. Gillot  ,5. ;Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des  Modernes  p560 

5.  Sainte-Beuve,A.  jllouveaux  Lundis  Vol.l,p.304 


24. 

Progressive, too,  were  the  Modernes  outside  the  field 

of  literature.  Perrault, as  soon  as  the  garden  of  the  Tuilleries 

was  completed, astonished  its  keepers  by  asking  that  it  be  opened 

1 

to  the  common  people.  M.  Colbert, one  of  the  ministers, objected 

that  only  the  lazy  people  from  among  the  lower  classes  would  take 

advantage  of  this  privelege ;but  Perrault  argued  farther  that  the 

garden  would  become  a haven  for  invalids, for  convalescents, for 

those  starving  for  air, for  the  children  of  the  entire  kingdom, 

in  fact.  And  so  convincing  was  his  argument  that  he  won  his  point; 

Les  Tuilleries  was  opened  to  the  public.  The  keepers, who  had  not 

sensed  the  fact  that  a certain  love  for  the  beautiful  is  inherent 

in  man, were  skeptical  about  the  outcome  of  the  altruistic  plan  of 

Perrault.  They  seem  to  have  looked  upon  the  scheme  as  a repitition 

of  the  project  of  casting  one’s  pearls  before  swine, and  for  it 

they  prophesied  some  such  unfavorable  results.  But  perrault  counted 

2 

upon  man’s  love  of  beauty  to  prevent  his  mutilating  the  garden, 
and  if  his  confidence  wusbetrayed  he  does  no$  mention  the  fact 
in  his  account  of  his  discussion  with  the  keepers.  It  was  not 
until  the  time  of  Diderot  that  the  common  people  found  a place  in 
literature.  One  can  see  that  Perrault ' s sympathy  for  the  more 
unfortunate  classes  was  a thought  in  advance  of  his  time, and  one 
that  agreed  perfectly  with  the  theory  of  Rousseau’s  ’’Inegalite". 

The  rights  of  the  common  people  received  a later  champion  in 
Benjamin  Constant  who  gave  impetus  to  the  idea  that  the  human 

1. Sainte-Beuve ,A. ;Nouveaux  Lundis  Vol.l,p.304 

/ 

2. La  Croix, paul;Memoires  de  Charles  Perrault  p.  121-22 


I 


* » 


25 


vv  h i c K 

being  had  certain  rights  witJTthe  powers  of  state  should  not 
interfere. 

VI 

A most  significant  victory  was  accorded  the  Modernes 

when  the  religious  party  allied  itself  with  them  against  the 

Ancient..  Unconscious  of  the  fact  that  it  was  destroying  the 

source  of  its  own  power, the  church  came  forward  to  sanctify  the 

/ 1 

doctrine  of  perfectibilite  set  forth  by  Perrault.  It  was  a blow 
to  the  Catholic  faith  whose  very  foundation  was  laid  upon  the 

traditions  and  dogma  of  the  past.  The  church  at  large  was  divided 

/ 

in  its  sympathies, and  Bossuet  and  Fenelon  took  up  their  pens 
against  one  another.  Bossuet  was  clearly  an  ancient.  His  love  for 
the  classics  had  grown  with  him  until  he  could  scarcely  tolerate 
any  departure  from  what  had  already  been  established  as  good  in 
art  and  in  thought.  Fenelon  was  determined  to  remain  a neutral 
spectator , but  as  a matter  of  fact  his  philosophy  savors  strongly 
of  moder&ism;and  from  the  quarrel  between  Boileau  and  Perrault 
was  born  a new  literary  spirit  which  was  to  expand  under  the 
teachings  of  Fenelon.  Fe'nelon  would  not  have  allied  himself 
openly  with  the  new  party, but  his  work  is  essentially  liberal  in 
spirit, and  more  than  once  we  find  him  departing  from  classical 

traditions, and  branching  out  into  thought  entirely  modern  in 

/ / 

concept.  For  instance  his  Telemaque, classic  in  subject , classic 
in  color , classic  in  form, is  not  classic  &t  its  foundation, for 

it  turns  from  the  gods  of  paganism, and  finds  its  inspiration  in 

...  2 

the  Christian  faith.  One  reads  in  '’Jj'Bducat ion  des  Fillesn  a new 

1. Kigault  ,H.  ;Hikto-ire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des  Modernes 

. / y P .484  77/} 

2. Pelli ssier ,G. ;Precis  de  I'Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Frangaise  p. 


won  is 


( 


t 


t 


"eoII.tri  aeb  no!  JiJoxr&fl  ’J"  at  Bb>iei  r>nO 


- - ........ 


26 


concept  of  woman's  sphere  of  activity, and  ix  was  by  this  very 

treatise  that  Fenelon  invited  the  antagonism  of  his  contemporaries 

in  the  church  who  had  not  grasped  with  him  the  idea  that  woman 

1 

was  coming  to  be  treated  as  an  independent  personality.  L'Abbe 
Fleury  felt  that  it  would  be  a great  paradox  to  pretend  that  a 
woman's  education  need  consist  of  anything  save  her  catechism 

1 

and  perhaps  the  art  of  dancing,  singing  and  speaking  correctly. 
Fenelon  has  not  the  modern  disregard  for  the  classic  models.  True, 
he  does  imitate  the  ancients, but  along  with  this  process  of  imi- 
tation he  inserts  his  own  genius , exercises  his  own  freedom  of 

spirit, and  produces  altogether  a suppleness  of  style  that  one 

/ 

never  finds  in  Boileau.  In  intelligence , too , and  sentiment  Fenelon 

surpasses  Boileaujhe  is  inspired  by  sensibilite^and  is  bound  by 

2 

no  system  of  rules  in  his  effort  to  express  himself,  perhaps  the 
most  dist inguishing  characteristic  of  this  man  is  his  knowledge 
of  the  human  heart, and  a sort  of  ingenious  tenderness  quite 
foreign  to  the  classic  schooljfor  the  classicists  emphasized  al- 
ways the  predominance  of  reason  over  sentiment , and  insisted  upon 
the  observance  of  a cult  of  rules  destined  to  discipline  the 

form  and  thought  of  the  author. 

/ 

Fenelon  felt , too, that  the  language  of  the  classicist 

was  not  flexible  enoughjthat  the  rules  imposed  by  the  classic 

grammar  were  too  uniform, and  that  they  handicapped  the  true  ex- 

3 

pression  of  thought.  "On  voit  venir",said  he  in  his  letter  to  the 

. ✓ / 
l.Pellissier,G.  ;Precis  de  l'Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Franpaise  $277, 

2. Ibid. ;p.280 

3 .Abry, Audio , Crouzet ; Hist.  Illus.de  la  Litterature  Franpaise  p.275 


27 


academy,  ”un  nominatif  su'bstantif  qui  mene  son  adjectif  par  la  main; 

son  verbe  ne  manque  pas  de  marcher  derriere,suivi  d’un  adverbe 

/ A 

oui  ne  souffre  rien  entre  deux,et  IS  regime  appelle  aussitot  un  ac- 

✓ 1 

cusatif  qui  ne  peut  jamais  se  deplacer.”  This  rigidity  of  construc- 
tion was  a feature  of  classicism  which  irritated  the  romanticists 
perhaps  as  much  as  any  other  single  principle  of  the  school. 

For  the  romanticist  liked  to  give  his  expression  a variety  of  turns, 
to  accommodate  it  to  his  mood, to  make  it  express  the  sighing  of 
the  leaves  ,or  the  singing  of  the  waters  as  he  willed.  And  so  we 
see  the  phrase, fixed  with  the  classicist , becoming  more  and  more 
flexible  as  literature  approaches  the  romantic  school  vrtiere  the 
expression  proceeds  from  the  heart  of  the  writer.  The  classical 
school, then, appreciated  rectitude  and  order, while  the  romantic 
group  preferred  less  rectitude  and  more  relief ;romanticism  pre- 
ferred movement  to  order  and  demanded  that  style  conform  to 
2 , 
nature.  This, it  seems, was  the  thing  that  Fenelon  had  in  mind  when 

he  began  advocating  the  relaxation  of  the  rules  regulating  the 
order  of  the  sentence.  It  was  not  for  him  to  inaugurate  the 
movement  proper.  The  time  was  not  ripe  for  the  adoption  of  an 
idea  so  much  at  variance  with  the  thought  of  the  century; it  re- 
mained for  the  bolder  school  of  the  nineteenth  century  to  effect 
the  structural  changes  advocated  by  this  man  who  did  not  realize 
what  an  innovation  he  was  suggesting. 

/ 

1.  Pellissier ,G . ;Le  Reulisme  du  Romantisme  p.  6b  from 

✓ / 

Fenelon, Lettre  a l'Acaderaie  Chapter5 

/ 

2.  Pellissier, G. ;Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Fran^aise  p.126 


26 


Sven  the  sermons  of  Fenelon  show  a spontaneity  of 
sentiment  and  imaginations  certain  "plenitude  de  coeur"  which  he 
considers  essential  to  Christian  eloquencl. Modern  too  is  his 
conception  of  history  which  he  attempts  to  treat  in  its  relation 
to  time  and  custom.  In  other  words, he  removes  history  from  the 

realm  of  generality  by  inserting  in  it  local  color.  "Chaque  race 

/ / 

et  chaque  age  a son  genie"is  the  idea  of  Fenelon;  it  was  the  idea 
of  Perrault ; it  was  an  idea  which  reached  over  into  the  nineteenth 

century  where  it  was  destined  to  transform  both  history  and 

/ 

literary  criticism.  In  Fenelon  one  glimpses  an  ancestor  of  romanti- 
cism,for  like  the  romanticists  he  refused  to  sacrifice  diversity 

2 

to  unity, or  to  subject  independence  to  discipline. 

Te  have  tried  to  indicate  the  modern  sympathies  of  a 

man  who  has  been  called  the  most  ancient  of  the  ancients;  yet 

Fenelon  was  neither  Ancien  nor  Moderne.  He  was  both  Ancien  and 

Moderne,and  as  such  he  preferred  to  be  known.  He  admitted  great 

4 

imperfections  in  the  ancients;  the  action  of  the  classic  tragedy, 
for  instance,he  complained  was  improbable , and  the  comedy  was 
lacking  in  that  delicacy  of  humor  which  one  would  like  to  find  in 
the  drama.  A little  pedantic  he  found  the  ancients  yet  when  pressed 
by  La  Motte  to  declare  his  affiliations  in  the  quarrel  he  re- 
fused to  ally  himself  with  either  party , insisting  that  his  was  a 
neutral  position.  It  seems  that  he  defined  well  his  position, for 

his  contemporaries  could  never  classify  him  to  their  own  sntis- 

/ 

l.Pellissier ,G. ;Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Frangaise  pp. 260-1 
2. Ibid.  pp. 260-261  N 

3. Rigault , H. Oeuvres  Completes  Vol.l,p.  407 

4. Rigault ,H. ;Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des  Modernes 

pp.388-9 


29 


faction, and  during  the  second  phase  of  the  quarrel  La  Motte  and 

1 X 

MmeDacier  both  claimed  him  for  their  respective  parties.  Fenelon 
could  never  bring  himself  to  break  entirely  with  the  past.  A cer- 
tain reverence  for  the  masters  kept  him  hopeful  for  the  contin- 
uation of  the  classic  influence  which  he  considered  the  strongest 
kind  of  an  educator  .for  the  minds  of  men; butsimultaneously  with 

this  wish  he  was  expressing  the  conviction  and  the  desire  that 

2 

the  Modernes  might  overtake  and  surpass  the  ancients.lt  is  well 
to  remember  here  that  the  early  romanticists  turned  to  Fenelon 
for  the  inspiration  and  comfort  which  the  classicists  did  not 
offer  them.  Lamartine  himself  tells  of  the  pleasure  which  this 
author  afforded  him, of  the  relief  he  found  after  the  dreary  monot- 
ony of  the  curriculum  of  his  boyhood  school,  a system  in  which 

he  found  no  pleasure  because  it  was  bound  down  in  slavery  to  the 

3 

traditions  of  classicism.  Dissatisfied  with  these  classic 

studies,  and  wearied  from  his  labors  over  vague  translations 

he  used  to  look  forward  eagerly  to  his  six  weeks’  vacation  in 

the  country  home  of  his  parents  where  he  might  revel  in  "la. 

Jerusalem  deliveree”  of  Tasso,  or  the  ’’Telemaque”  of  Fenelon. 

These  books  he  liked  to  carry  into  the  garden  where  he  pictures 

himself  in  his  ’’Meditations”.  ”Je  me  couchais  a cote  de  mes 

livres  cheris”,  he  says,  ”et  je  respirais  en  liberte  les  songes 

4 

6[ui  s'exhalaient  pour  mon  imagination  de  leurs  pages ” 

\ 

1.  Rigault,  H. ; Oeuvres  Completes  Yol.  1.  p.  395 

2.  Bailly,  A.;  L’ecole  Classique  Francaise  p.  199 

3«  Lamartine,  A.;  Meditations  p.  16 

4.  Lamartine,  A. ; Meditations  p.  17 


30 


One  cannot  read  Lamartine  without  realizing  that  he  was  indeed 

a creature  with  an  imagination,  and  his  own  testimony  to  the 

inspirit ation  of  Fenelon  leads  one  to  believe  that  the  author  of 
/ ✓ 

Telemaque  must  have  been  more  closely  related  than  has  been 
supposed  to  this, later  school  which  included  Lamartine  among  its 

pupils.  In  his  natural  spirituality,  in  his  idealism,  and  in 

/ 

his  ease  and  tranquility  of  movement  Fenelon  reminds  one  of 
Lamartine.  nature  to  him, as  to  Lamartine,  appeared  always 

gracious  and  smiling,  and  he  allowed  his  imagionation  to  play 

1 

upon  everything.  Like  Lamartine,  too,  he  was  fond  of  meditat- 
ing upon  history,  economics,  and  politics;  and  in  his  "plan  de 
Oouvernment " he  laid  down  a good  many  of  the  principles  marked 
by  the  romantic  school.  Benjamin  Constant,  for  instance,  de- 
veloped Fenelon’ s own  theory  in  his  contention  that  in  his 
relation  with  the  state  man  should  have  the  rights  of  a human 

being,  and  that  no  monarch  should  be  vested  with  power  to  destroy 

/ 

these  rights.  Fenelon  was  handicapped  by  the  age  in  which  he 
lived,  and  he  did  not  express  this  revolutionary  doctrine  as 
strongly  as  did  his  sympathizers  of  the  nineteenth  century  ; 
but  certainly  these  ideas  harmonize  more  clearly  with  those 
of  Rousseau  and  of  Constant  than  with  those  of  the 

conservative  party  of  his  own  day.  When  he  comes  to 

/ / 

paint  Arcadia,  and  the  ruins  of  Jerusalem,  Fenelon 
1.  Faguet,  3.;  XVII0  Siecle  Etudes  Litteraires  p.  376 


31 


recalls  to  us  similar  pictures  by  Chateaubriand  who  stands  as  a 

/ 

near  relative  of  romanticism.  Fenelon  was  in  advance  of  his 

century,  as  was  Andre  Chenier,  and  like  Chenier  he  has  been 

claimed,  rightly  we  believe,  as  an  apostle  by  the  nineteenth  cen- 
1 

tury.  He  was  one  of  those  men  whose  position  was  not  clearly 
defined,  whose  sympathies  lay  with  both  parties  in  the  quarrel 
which  divided  his  century,  and  who  was,  therefore,  clearly  one 
of  the  poets  of  the  transition  period. 

It  was  in  his  "Lettre  sur  les  occupations  de 

/ / 

l'academie  frangaise"  that  Fenelon  introduced  the  idea  of  age 

2 

and  climate  in  history;  it  was  his  "relat ivity"  theory.  This 
theory  sprang  from  the  same  source  as  did  the  idea  of  individual- 
ism in  religion.  History,, he  believed  must  be  true  to  the  cus- 
toms of  the  nations,  and  since  every  nation  is  undergoing  con- 
tinual changes,  one  cannot  paint  their  respective  histories 

3 

in  a uniform  manner.  L'UPellissier  believes  that  the  real  history 

of  Prance  was  born  with  romanticism,  and  that  M^de  St  a el,  and 

4 

Chateaubriand  stand  as  the  first  masters  of  modern  history.  He 

means  to  say  that  romanticism  by  its  sense  of  relativity  was 

responsible  for  the  renewal  of  histoty  in  the  nineteenth  century. 

The  romanticist  it  was  who  applied  to  history,  not  only 
/ 

Pension's  theory  of  climate  and  age,  but  added  his  own  idea  of 
soil  and  food;  and  if  the  romanticist  is  a little  less  exact 

* ' S 

1.  Paguet,  T3.  ; XVII  Siecle  Etudes  litteraires  p.378 

/ 

2. Bailly,A. ;L' ecole  Olassique  Franpaise  p.199 

3.  Fenelon;  Lettre  a l'academie  Chap. 8 

/ 

_4.pellissier . ft.  ; Realisme  _du  PogantiarnR  


, ■ 


? 

• r 


i 


32 


than  his  scientific  predecessor,  he  is  more  vivacious,  and  by 

/ 

virtue  of  his  sensibilite  has  been  able  to  impart  more  reality 
1 

to  the  past.  And  this  is  very  much  of  the  same  thing  that 

/ 

Fenelon  was  trying  to  accomplish  by  his  theory  of  climates. 

/ 

In  criticism,  too,  the  ideas  of  Fenelon  foreshadow 

those  of  the  romanticists;  for,  friend  though  he  be  of  the 

/ 

ancients,  Renelon  still  preaches  that  rules  are  arbitrary 
affairs,  and  that  literary  criticism  should  consider  its  subject 
in  its  relation  to  its  particular  people  and  century*  And  so 

we  find  classicism  in  the  seventeenth  century  losing  its 

✓ 

prestige  even  among  its  own  friends,  men  like  Renelon  who 

loved  still  the  traditions  of  the  past,  but  who  could  no 

/ 

longer  be  contained  in  the  mould  of  antiquity.  "L* ideal  class- 

/ 

ique  n’est  pas  detruit,  rnais  chancelle.  D'une  main  qui 

/ / / x 

tremble  de  sa  temerite,  Fenelon  montre  les  voie  ou  s'engagera 

V N 2 

le  dix-huitierne  siecle." 


1. 

2. 


Pellissier,  G.  ; 
Bailly , A.;  L* 


4 


Le  Real i sine  du 

/ 

ecole  Classique 


Roman  ti  sme 
Fran caise 


p.  251-3 
p.  199 


33 


VII 

The  moderns  knew  not  the  meaning  of  romanticism, 
hut  they  jznderstood  the  wor d,Tfreedomn,  and  it  was  the  moderns 
who  succeeded  in  emancipating  genius,  and  in  freeing  poetry 
from  the  authority  of  t ne  models  which  had  been  its  master 

for  so  long;  and  in  doing  this  they  prepared  the  way  for  the 

1 

"mo i " of  Rousseau  which  appeared  half  a century  later.  For  the 
consequence  of  the  rejection  of  antique  mad  els  was  "la  faillite 

/ s 

de  lfideal  classique  et  1*  avenement  de  ce  oue  nous  pourrons 

1/ 

appeler«**la  modernite".  And  literature,  freed  of  the  shackles 

of  antiquity  tended  more  and  more  to  accommodate  itself  to  the 

2 

taste  of  the  century.  And  once  the  idea  established  that 
beauty  in  literature  might  be  found  outside  the  venerable 
models,  the  writing  world  began  to  take  stodk  of  itself;  it 
became  bolder;  it  attempted  new  things  and  the  result  was  a 
het orogeneous  array  of  genres  that  could  never  have  existed 
under  the  ancient  regime.  Not  all  of  these  genresproved  them- 
selves valuable  assets  to  the  literary  world,  but  the  point 
is  that  tradition  was  overthrown,  and  men  at  last  dared 
express  themselves  through  their  works  instead  of  veiling 
their  individuality  behind  tne  ritual  of  antiquity.  M.  G-illot 
is  right;  Rousseau  could  never  have  put  himself  into  a produc- 
tion which  was  cramped  into  the  mould  of  antiquity*  As  a 

✓ / 

result  of  this  departure  the  comedie  serieuse  was  born,  and 

the  arame  bourgeoise,  and  the  comedie  larmayante.  Tragedy  and 

1.  Gillbt,  H* ; Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Andiens  et  des 

2.  Ibid*  p.  540  Modernes  p.539-4  ) 


34. 


comedy  came  to  oe  tolerated  together  in  the  same  drama,  and 
here  we  see  Diderot  standing  between  the  two  schools  with  his 
"Pere  de  Familie",  with  "le  Fils  Daturel,"  and  with  his 
"Marianne in  each  of  which  appear  both  tears  and  laughter*  In  the 
"Marianne"  perhaps  the  author  leans  a little  farther  towards 
romanticism;  but  without  the  "Marianne"  Diderot  would  still 

be  related  to  the  romanticist  who  tended  always  toward  the 

1 

realism  which  Diderot  sought.  It  was  not  the  so  raid,  grimy  real- 
ism that  came  with  the  school  that  took  the  name;  it  was  oily 
the  desire  to  paint  things  as  they  appeared  in  nature.  And 
it  was  in  obedience  to  this  impulse  tnat  the  drama  of  Diderot 
was  created.  For  life  is  not  all  tears;  neither  is  it  all 
laughter.  It  is  neither  quite  serious  nor  altogether  frivolous 
at  any  particular  time.  7»rhy  then  should  the  drama,  any  drama, 
confine  itself  to  the  tragedies  of  life?  What  justification 
can  anyone  offer  fb  r t he  assumption  that  either  joy  or  sorrow 
may  absorb  the  attention  of  the  dramatist  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  otner?  The  idea  had  already  taxen  root  in  England, 
and  Shakespeare  in  his  most  violent  tragedies’ had  introduced 
scenes  of  pure  comedy  and  even  buffoonery.  John  palstaff 
was  as  much  a favorite  on  the  English  stage  as  were  the  kings 
with  whom  he  appeared.  Ana  the  drunken  porter  was  accepted 
as  a part  of  "Macbeth”,  and  the  grave  diggers  as  belonging  to 
"Hamlet"  without  a thought  as  to  the  impropriety  of  the  mixing 
of  these  two  extreme  types  of -genre.  Cardinal  Wiseman 

/ 

1.  Pellissier,  G. ; Le  Realisme  du  Romantisme  p.  77 


35 


maintained  that  the  English  moderns,  Chaucer,  Spencer,  Milton, 

Shakespeare  loved,  and  expressed  nature  better  than  the  great  - 

1 

est  poets  of  antiquity.  We  cannot  go  into  the  discussion  of 
the  English  phase  of  the  quarrel,  but  it  is  worth  remarking  that 
the  moderns  in  England  were  engaged  in  a movement  synonomous 
to  the  modern  movement  in  Prance  and  that  the  agitators  in  both 
countries  were  contending  for  essentially  the  same  things. 

The  cry  of  the  Mo  dames,  then,  was  "freedom";  to  tradition 
they  opposed  particular  sentiment;  they  strove  to  emancipate 

reason,  and  to  end  the  reign  of  dogmatism.  "Proelamant 

✓ 

hautement  les  droits  du  JLibre  examen , les  modernes  preparent 

✓ / 

cette  emancipation  decisive  de  l'individu,  ce  triomphe  de 

/ ✓ 

1 1 2 individual isme  que  consacrera  def init ivement  la  revolution 
2 

roman  tique . ,T 


1.  Higault  , H.  ; Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des 
Modernes  p.  448. 

2.  Cillot , H. ; La  Querelle  des  Anciens  et 


des  Modernes 


p.  561 


36 


VIII 

The  anger  of  the  Ancient  s was  kindled  against 
Perrault  when  he  applied  his  theory  of  continuous  progress 
to  literature.  The  Ancients  argued  that  it  need  not 
follow  that  Ghapelain  was  superior  to  Homer  by  virtue  of  the 
fact  that  he  lived  a couple  of  thousand  years  after  him, 

or  that  any  genre  had  been  perfected  in  the  interval  between 

1 

the  two  reriods.  For  the  Ancients  admitted  no  relativity  in 
2 

literary  taste.  Boileau,  Racine,  and  La  Fontaine  owed  their 

culture  to  the  study  of  the  models  of  antiquity  and  they  felt 

it  too  much  of  a ^resumption  on  the  part  of  the  later  authors 

3 

to  attempt  to  equal  these  masters.  This  was  the  point  of 

contention  between  l]j^G  de  Stael  and  her  opponents  when  she 

/ 

attempted  to  carry  her  theory  of  "per f ectibilit e"  into  litera- 

/ 

ture.  It  was  in  her  "de  la  litterature " that  she  attempted  to 
examine  the  influence  of  literature,  law,  and  religion  in  the 
history  of  the  development  of  the  world;  and  this  seems  to 
have  been  in  part  the  project  that  Perrault  was  proposing  in 
his  law  of  progress.  But  here  again  Perrault  fs  lack  of  genius 
stood  him  at  fault..  I#10  de  Stael  by  her  method  of  approach, 

/ e ' 

1.  Albert,  Paul;  La  Litterature  Frsn^aise  au  XVII  Siecle  p*  376. 

✓ 

2.  Lanson,  G.;  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Fran^aise  p*  493. 

✓ 

3.  Bailly,  A.;  L’ecole  Classique  Franpaise  p.  194. 


• ■ 


37 


compelled  the  attention  of  her  readers.  Her  arguments  were 
not  always  sound,  but  iiie  was  able  to  make  herself  heard,  and 
having  been  heard  she  was  emboldened  to  launch  even  farther 
into  her  subject,  confident  that  she  would  have  the  attention 
of  the  reading  public.  Perrault  had  no  such  gift  of  style  to 
recommend  him  to  his  readers,  and  was  consequently  handicapped 
to  that  extent  when  it  was  a question  of  obtaining  for  himself 
a hearing. 


IX 


Boileau  perhans  better  than  any  writer  of  the 

1 

seventeenth  century  represents  tne  classic  spirit.  He  believ- 
ed the  ancients  nearer  perfection  in  beauty  of  language,  simplici- 
ty of  feeling,  and  perfection  of  form.  He  believed  that  the 
form  employed  by  a writer  ^oould  be  correct,  and  the  correct 
form  to  him  was  that  already  established  by  antiquity.  Upon 
this  point,  at  least,  Boileau  remained  true  to  his  own  teach- 
ing^ for  so  careful  was  he  of  his  rhyme  that  he  is  said  to 

2 

have  written  often  his  second  verse  before  the  first  in  order 
to  insure  his  work  against  an  error  of  this  kind.  True  or  not 
as  this  story  may  be,  he  deplored,  we  know, the? tonden cy  of  the 
century  to  abandon  itself  to  inspiration,  to  pass  beyond  the 
rules  in  the  transports  of  genius;  ana  he  constantly  exhorted 

_ s 

1.  Brunotiere,  ]?.;  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Franchise  Vol.2 

p.  569-70 

2.  Pellissier  , G.;  Le  Realisme  du  Roraantisme  p.o4-55. 


38. 


writers  to  copy  the  ancients  who  to  him  were  masters  of  form 

1 

and  thought,  and  who  had  already  attained  classic  perfection. 

Suppressing  then  whatever  spark  of  originality  he  might  have 

possessed,  Boileau  proceeded  to  produce  what  seems  to  us  good 

2 

rhetoric,  but  which  savors  but  slightly  of  good  literature; 

and  his  language  though  strong  and  vigorous  seems  always  a 

bit  constrained  and  laborious.  It  was  in  "1  'At  t Poetique”  with 

which  he  answered  ,TLe  Sieele  de  Louis  le  Graiia"  that  Boileau 

set  forth  his  poetic  creed.  It  has  been  called  the  code  of 
3 

Classicism,  not  unwisely,  far  in  it  he  defined  exactly  the 
position  of  the  classicist,  particularly  in  his  interpretation 
of  good  diction.  The  ”sover  ei  gnty  of  reason’1 2 3 4  is  the  text  of 
the  whole  "thing,  and  in  the  name  of  reason  Boileau  demands 
qualities  of  clearness  and  order  wh ich  he  allows  no  genius 
to  disregard.  To  all  genreshe  assigns  definite  limits,  and 

whatever  be  the  production  in  question  these  rules  must  be  re- 

•4 

spected.  This  predominance  of  reason  over  sentiment  we  remember 

as  the  keynote  of  classicism.  Boileau  works  always  toward 

the  reduction  to  the  universal,  for  as  M.  Pellissier  says; 

"G'est  une  maxime  essentiellemen t classique  d'amender  la  nature, 

/ / / 

d'en  supprimer  les  irregularities  et  les  defauts,  de  la 
modeler  sur  l'idee  universelle  des  choses”.  "les  elassiques, 

1.  Petit  de  Julle^ville;  Ilistoire  de  la  Longue  et  La  Litterature 
Prangaise  Vol.  5.  p.  178 

2.  Pellissier,  G . ; Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Prang ai se  p.  247. 

3.  Ibid.  pp.  251,252. 

4.  Ibid.  pp.  251,252. 


39. 


negligeunt  ce  qui  peut  accident ell ement  se  produire,  choissent 

dans  la  nature  ou  dans  l'histoire  ce  que  la  raison  avoue  et  au 

1 

besoin,  ils  les  rectifient,  ils  les  changent  tout  entieres". 

?o?,l'Art  Poetique"  the  romanticists  objected  that 
it  was  narrow  and  contrary  to  nature  in  its  insistence  upon 
the  observance  of  the  rules  and  precepts  of  antiquity;  and  for 

this  restraint  they  substituted  variety,  caprice,  and  exuberance 

2 

in  all  forms.  It  is  not  hard  to  conjecture  what  would  have 

been  Soileau’s  attitude  towards  victor  Hugo,  and  his  disciples. 

Almost  prophetic  is  thianl'Art  Poetique"  which  expresses  the 

author's  hopes  and  fears,  his  favor  and  his  scornfor  literature, 

present  and  future.  He  attacks  violently  the  romanesque  type, 

and  fears  the  result  of  its  introduction  into  the  ecologue  so 

dear  to  the  heart  of  the  classicist;  and  he  rejects  utterly 

the  irregular  tragedy,  the  tragic-comedy  which  less  than  half 

a century  later  was  t o be  perfected  by  Diderot.  In  a word, 

Boileau  has  but  little  appreciation  for  the  romance  of  poetry, 

but  prefers  constantly  precision  and  truth,  measure  and  restraint. 

Nature  to  him  is  human,  not  universal;  and  the  rocks,  the 

mountains  and  the  solitude  which  offered  food  to  the  soul  of  the 

romanticist  find  no  place  in  the  affections  of  3oileau.  Nature 

remained  almost  a stranger  to  this  man  who  demanded  of  it  food 

4 

for  his  intellect  and  reason.  And  when  nature  refused  him  this 


1.  Pellissier,  G . ; he  Realisme  du  Romantisme  p.  55 

2.  Petit  do  Julleville;  Histoire  de  la  Langue  et  de  la  Litt erature 

Frangaise  Vol.  V,  p.  194 


3.Faguet,  S. ;XVI1S  Biecle  etudes  Litteraires  Vol.  2, 

4.Lanson,  G. ; Boileau  p.  55 


Jr  1 2 


< 


40. 

consolation  he  turned  for  his  subject  matter  to  generalities, 

and  as  a consequence  produced  works  which  contained  none  of  the 

personality  which  permeated  the  productions  of  the  great  child  of 

nature,  Jean  Jaques  Rousseau.  Boileau  attacked  the  "Sottises 

champetres,  les  Iris  en  l'air,  les  "je  vous  hais;  dits  tendre- 

1 

ment  de  Quinault".  In  admiring  Homer  he  failed  to  see  the  real 
beauties  of  this  the  greatest  poet  of  antiquity;  for  not  until 
Rousseau  discovered  nature  upon  the  shores  of  Lake  Bienne,  and 

l 

Chateaubriand  and  Saint e-Pierre  revealed  to  their  people  the 
wild  beauties  of  America  and  of  l*Ile  de  la  Prance  did  the 
French  people  perceive  the  true  source  of  beauty  in  Homer. 

Nature  in  Homer  they  had  overlooked. 

The  romanticists  repudiated  any  form  of  imitation; 
for  imitation,  they  claimed,  hid  nature  from  the  artist.  If  one 
would  paint  a storm,  they  said, let  him  observe  the  storm,  and 
not  copy  Homer's  reflections  upon  it.  If  one  would  paint  char- 
acter let  him  observe  human  nature.  Victor  Hugo  said  that  the 

moment  one  became  an  imitator  he  made  himself  a classicist  even 

2 

though  he  chose  a romanticist  for  his  model.  And  so  romanticism 

3 

warred  upon  Boileau  until  his  influence  was  no  longer  felt; 
lor  itt  wuiit  a barrier  between  the  France  of  yesterday  and  the 
France  of  to-day  from  a literary  point  of  view  just  as  the  Revolu- 
tion changed  forever  the  political  situation.  And  literature 

1.  Faguet,  E^. ; XVIIe  Htudss  Litteraires,  Vol.  2,  p.  239 

2.  Pellissier,  G.  Le  Realisme  du  Romantisme  p.  59 

3.  Abry, Audio,  Cr-ouzet  ; Litterature  Franpaise  p.  217 


41. 

after  the  dispute,  tended  toward  romanticism  rather  than  toward 

1 

the  classical  style  advocated  by  3oileau.  Boileau  was  not  the 

founder  of  the  classical  school,  but  he  formulated  these  prin- 

2 

ciples  into  a creed  which  united  writers  with  sympathetic  ideals, 

and  gave  to  classicism  a body  capable  of  making  itself  felt. 

3 

throughout  France,  and  entire  Europe.  The  classicists  were  not 

without  their  excellencies.  Excellent  craftsmen  they  were,  and 

elegance,  and  simplicity,  and  strength  marked  their  work.  But 

there  was  with  them  a certain  narrowness  produced  by  the  very 

proficiencies  which  we  have  just  mentioned.  M.Strachey  points 

out  that  omissions  occur  as  a result  of  careful  and  deliberate 

selection,  and  he  wittily  remarks  the  French  classicists,  being 

artist s , "practiced  with  unsparing  devotion  the  virtue  of  leaving 
4 

out".  For  to  obtain  clari.ty  ana  simplicity  involved  the  abandon- 
ment of  other  beauties,  vague  suggestion,  and  strangeness  of 
imagination  which  have  come  to  mean  the  beauty  par  excellence  of 
poetry*,  Lor  was  this  all,  for  as  classical  traaition  degenerated 
we  fin£,  blindly  following  the  dogma  of  classicism,  writers  in 
whom  the  true  classic  spirit  has  long  since  died.  It  is  the  thing 
which  rendered  classicism  insipid  and  meaningless  to  succeeding 
generat ions. 

1.  Lanson,  £.;  Boileau  p.  203 

2.  Strachey ,G.L. ; Landmarks  in  French  Literature  p.  74 

3.  Ibid.  p.  75 

4.  Btrachey ,0- .L. ; Landmarks  in  French  Literature  p.  68 


42. 


If  Perrault  was  fitted  to  lead  the  Moderns  in  their  rev- 
volution,  Boileau  was  not  less  well  equipped  to  hold  the  field 
for  the  Ancien.5  . In  the  first  place,  he  knew  the  classics; 

for  he  had  been  educated,  first  for  the  ministry,  and  later  for  the 

1 

bar.  He  had  not  much  inclination  toward  the  former  of  these  call- 
ings, and  he  laid  by  the  practice  of  law  in  order  to  devote  him- 
self to  literature.  But  his  early  preparation  necessitated 
a familiarity  with  the  writers  of  antiquity  which  prepared  him 
for  the  position  he  was  later  to  take  as  their  defender.  Horace 

he  admired,  and  modeled  his  own  "l* Art  Poetique"  aftbr  "1 ‘Arc 

1 

Poetica"  of  Horace.  In  fact  it  was  the  aspiration  of  Boileau 

2 

to  be  known  as  the  French  Horace, and  toward  this  goal  he  strove 

2 

as  he  worked  over  his  satires,  and  moral  epitres.  The  boy 
Boileau  seems  to  have  been  a docile  child  with  none  of  the  vim 
and  determination  which  characterized  the  youthful  Boileau. 

The  father  of  Boileau  used  to  say:  "Nicolas  est  un  bon  enfant 

3 

qui  ne  dira  jamais  de  m&l  de  personne".  And  it  was  this  good 
child  that  was  to  grow  into  the  keenest  satirist  of  his  time. 
Perhaps  this  satirical  tone  which  he  adopted  for  his  masterpieces 
may  have  come  as  a result  of  the  sad  experiences  which  sur- 
rounded his  early  childhood.  His  mother  dying  when  he  was  but 
a baby  left  him,  one  of  fifteen  children,  to  the  care  of  his 
father;  and  his  father,  engrossed  with  other  duties,  immediately 


1.  Duval, Josephine;  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Franjaise,  p.  141 

2*  Faguet,H.;  XVIIe  Ftudes  Litt/raires,  Vol.  2,  p.  238 

3. Duval,  Josephine;  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Fran^aise,  p.  139 


> 


< t 


I 


I 


l. 


t 


. 


c 


' 


r 


' ?' 


( 


r 


X 


■ * < 


43. 

transferred  the  care  of  this  child  to  an  old  nurse.  This  woman, 
a vixen  she  was,  lodged  the  child  in  a garret  dungeon,  and  was 
always  harsh  and  imperious  in  her  attitude  towards  him.  Just 
how  much  the  work  of  Boileau  was  affected  by  this  early  train- 
ing is  hard  to  conjecture.  Certain  it  is  that  he  grew  to  man- 
hood with  ideas  altogether  conservative,  and  with  a respect  for 
discipline  and  authority  which  did  not  appear  in  Perrault • 

The  position  of  Boileau  in  the  quarrel  v/as  by  no 
means  an  enviable  one;  it  was  embarassing,  his  trying  to  defend 
the  ancients  in  a century  already  made  famous  by  Corneille  and 
Racine,  by  LaFontaine  and  Moliere,  by  LaBruyere  and  Bos suet. 
Perhaps  this  may  have  accounted  for  hisgenerous  treatment  of  his 
opponents  when  the  reconciliation  came  in  1700.  Boileau  wrote 
to  Perrault  admitting  that  in  some  respects  the  moderns  were 
superior  to  the  ancients;  that  in  science  and  arts  they  sur- 
passed the  ancients,  and  that  even  the  tragedies  of  the  moderns 

1 

were  superior  to  anything  attempted  by  antiquity.  The  letter 
pacified  Perrault,  but  a truce  between  the  two  leaders  could 
not  destroy  the  fire  already  so  well  under  way.  And  the  quarrel 
rested  for  a spell  only  to  reappear  a few  years  later  more 
violent  than  it  had  been  in  its  earlier  stage. 

Meanwhile  the  Mo derne^ gained  in  popularity,  people 
looked  upon  them  as  liberators  of  the  human  spirit,  and  began  to 
call  LaMotte  "l’ame  de  genie  ”,  For  Boileau,  representing  law 

1.  Abry, Audio, Crouzet ; La  Litterature  Fran^aise,  p.  305 

2.  Rigault,H.  ; Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des 

Modernes,  p.  428 


44 


and  order  as  he  did,  did  not  appeal  to  those  stirred  by  imagina- 
tion et  sensibilite^  nor  to  those  seeking  emancipation  from  rule. 
Novelty  and  originality  he  discouraged  as  seducers  tempting 
writers  to  disregard  the  rules  of  the  masters;  but  the  century 
seems  to  have  been  ready  for  a change, just  as  it  was  ready  for 
a change  in  Victor  Hugo's  time,  and  so  the  Mod  ernes  continued  to 
add  disciples  to  their  fold.  Perrault  came  off  victorious. 

The  academy  favored  him;  the  young  people  favored  him;  the 

women  favored  him;  and  it  was  Soileau  who  made  the  concessions 

1 

when  a reconciliation  was  effected.  It  was  not  easy  for  Boile&u 

to  write  to  Perrault,  for  he  had  been  bitter  in  his  criticism 

of  the  new  party.  He  had  referred  to  Perrault  as  a man  without 

taste,  and  had  applied  to  him  such  unflattering  epithets  as 

"insense",  "furieux", and  "imbecile";  yet  Perrault  did  not  reply 

in  kind  to  these  attacks*  As  he  said,  he  was  content  to  allow 

Boileau  to  hurl  the  insults  while  he  offered  reasons  for  his 
3 

own  convictions. 

✓ e x 

1.  Albert, Paul;  la  Litterature  Pranjaise  au  XVIII  Siecle,  p.  362 

/ 

2.  Abry,  Audio,  Crouzet;  Litterature  Pran^aise,  pp.  303-4 

3.  Ibid.  p.  303 

"Nous  d irons  tou jours  des  raisons, 

Ils  diront  toujours  des  injures." 

/ 0 \ 
from  the  Preface  du  2 volume  des  paralleles. 


45 


X 

"Les  ParallelesT,was  written  as  .a  sort  of  an  after- 
thought following  the  reading  of  ”Le  Siecle  de  Louis  le  Grand". 

Soileau,  during  the  reading,  had  shown  signs  of  discomfort,  and 

1 

at  last  had  left  the  assembly  in  a rage.  Racine,  at  the  close 
of  the  session,  paused  to  congratulate  the  author  of  "Le  Siecle 
de  Louis  le  Grande"  upon  the  serious  aspect  he  had  lent  to  this 

piece  of  plaisanterie.  Perrault  was  piqued  and  immediately  began 

% 

preparing"Les  Paralleles"  in  proof  of  his  seriousness  in  pre- 
ferring  modern  writers  to  those  of  antiquity.  Like  "Le  Preface 
de  Cromwell",  "Les  Paralleles"  is  a declamation  of  emancipation 
in  literature.  Hugo  and  Perrault  were  brothers  in  their  dis- 
like  for  imitations,  and  both  the  "Preface"  and  "Les  Paralleles" 
are  manifestos  against  established  rules.  "Les  paralleles"  is 
not  a masterpiece,  but  it  shows  the  marks  of  a free  mind,  and 
exhibits  a spirit  of  independence  without  which  the  romantic 
school  could  not  have  materialized.  Perrault  worked  impulsive- 
ly# saying  what  he  thought  without  much  regard  for  the  way  in 
which  he  said  it.  Perhaps  he  felt  the  awakening  of  that  spon- 
taneity which  was  to  embellish  the  poetry  of  romanticism.  "Les 
paralleles"  and  "Le  Preface  de  Cromwell"  were  alike  inspired 

1.  La  Croix, Paul;  Memoires  de  Charles  Perrault,  p.  151 

2.  Rigault,H.;  Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des  Modernes, 

p.148 

/ 

3.  La  Croix, Paul;  Memoires  de  Charles  Perrault,  p.  132 


46 


by  the  particular  ideas  of  their  respective  authors  and  the 

plans  of  the  ancient  models  were  not  considered  in  the  composition 

of  either  of  these  manifestos.  It  is  the  same  freedom  of  mind, 

the  same  independence  of  taste  as  that  exhibited  in  the  earlier 

works  of  Perrault , in  his,TSaint  Paulin”  which  we  discussed  above, 

and,  ridiculous  as  his  classic  contemporaries  found  his  precepts, 

some  of  these  precepts, at  least,  found  lodgment  in  fallow  ground, 

and  Lamartine , and  De.  Vigny,  a century  later  proved  the  truth 

of  Perrault* s contention  that  ”Le  ciel  et  les  enfers,  les  anges 

et  les  demons  pouvaient  etre  le  digne  objet  des  travaux  des 
1 

poetes”. 

V / »l 

The  Memo ires  of  Perrault,  the  only  ones  of  their  kind 

2 

left  by  the  century  of  Louis  XIV,  show  a familiarity  of  style, 
and  a depth  of  sincerity  hardly  surpassed  by  the  memoires  of 
the  romantic  period.  They  contain  none  of  the  mal  de  Siecle 
that  characterize  the  confessions  of  Rousseau,  but  they  are 
subjective  i»  that  thoy  in  that  they  deal  almost  exclusively 
with  the  life  of  the  author,  and  treat  but  lightly  the  affairs 
of  his  friends.  3ven  the  quarrel  with  Boileau  is  passed  over 

quickly  with  scarcely  more  than  a page  describing  the  effect 

\ 

of  the  reading  of  "Le  Siecle  de  Louis  le  Grand”  upon  the  acade- 
my. And  this  short  story  he  f?ives  us  only  as  an  explanation 
for  his  writing  "Les  parallels'*.  Not  without  a sense  of  humor 


1. Rigault,  H.;  Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des  Modernes 

p.  114. 

/ / 

2.  La  Croix,  p. ; Memoires  de  Charles  Perrault-pre face  p.  II 

2.  Ibid.  p.  XVII. 

4.  ibid.  p.  132 


. ,1. 


if  > • 

t • : f • 


t ■ • «t  <. 


; - >. 


, r , < 


. *(  . 


it  . 


47. 


either, is  Perrault  . One  cannot  escape  the  humorous  mood  of 

1 

the  writer  as  he  describes  Boileau's  reception  of  his  poem. 

The  whole  situation  Perrault  describes  for  us  in  a page  or  so 

without  much  comment  upon  either  of  the  parties  involved  in  the 

/ 

quarrel.  The  "Memo! res"  are  not  long;  one  wishes  that  Perrault 

might  have  written  more  of  this  stimulating  narrative  of  him- 

* 

self;  but  they  are  long  enough  to  show  a departure  from  the 
classic  ideal  and  to  indicateo  a new  type  of  literature  which 
was  to  culminate  in  the  subjectivity  of  romanticism. 


XI 

But  Perrault  does  not  live  for  us  by  virtue  of 

his  "Memoires"  nor  yet  by  his  literary  criticism.  perhaps 

the  real  genius  of  the  man  appeared  not  until  it  appeared 

/ 

in  "Les  Contes  de  Fees”  which  he  published  in  his  old  age 

after  the  quarrel  had  been  forgotten.  He  published  these 

stories  under  the  name  of  his  little  son,  perhaps  because 

he  considered  them  unworthy  of  the  efforts  of  a member  of 
2 

the  academy.  In  a sense  these  stories  form  the  masterpiece 

/ 

1.  La  Croix,  P. ; Les  Memoires  de  Charles  Perrault  p.  132 

2.  Deschanel,  R. ; Le  Romantisme  des  Classiques  p.  263 


» 


, 

IHH  II  i]  a ; ™ ■ 


48 


of  our  rornanesque  literature,  but  Perrault  did  not  live  to 

realize  the  value  of  this  humble  piece  of  work.  "Der  Jurist, 

Staatsman , Akademiker , Dichter  und  Rufer  im  Streit  der  Alten  und 

Modernen,  Perrault,  hatte  sich  wohl  nie  traumen  lessen,  dass 

von  ell  seinen  Werken  diese  kurzen  Marchen  die  Aschenbrodel 

1 

seiner  Muse,  sich  allein  als  lebenskraft ig  erweisen  solten" . The 

source  of  "les  Contes”  is  a disputed  point,  but  whatever  their 

origin  may  have  been  it  is  pretty  certain  that  Perrault  merely 

collected  the  stories  handed  down  by  tradition,  and  inserted  in 

2 

them  the  characteristics  of  his  own  nation.  The  stories  are 
marked  by  a simplicity  of  tone,  and  a faithful  observation  of 
detail  which,  together  with  a suggestion  of  the  marvelous,  make 
of  them  real  romans  for  the  children.  For  the  supernatural  is 

the  religion  of  children9and  they  delight  in  the  fairies  and 

/ 

guardian  angels  which  dominate  "les  Contes  des  Fees".  The  super- 
natural is  very  close  to  a religion  with  the  romanticist,  and 
one  feels  that  Perrault  was  not  far  from  the  ideals  of  this  later 
school  as  he  wrote  "Les  Contes".  It  is  true  that  he  has  not 
concealed  well  his  own  philosophy,  but  the  moral  of  his  story 
is  never  pronounced,  and  is  always  one  of  interest.  Telling  the 
stories  again  and  again  to  his  boy  he  must  have  noted  the  points 
which  most  impressed  the  child,  and  adding  bits  of  his  own 
philosophy  ,he  produced  the  delightful  combination  of  the 

1. Pletscher,T# ; Die  Marchen  Charles  Perrault,  p.  4 

✓ 

2.  Petit  de  Julleville,  Histoire  de  la  Langue  et  de  la  Litterature 

Franpaise,  p.  586 

3.  Deschanel,F. ;Romant isme  des  Classiques,  p.  263 


( > til . ( : 


- • 


y.  : 


. 


49. 

1 

experience  of  the  old  man  and  the  simple  faith  of  the  child.  The 
marvelous  in  "les  Contes”  is  emphasized  constantly,  and  together 
with  the  imaginative  element  helps  mark  the  author  as  inherent- 
ly sympathetic  with  the  principles  of  Romanticism.  ”Les  Contes” 
are  fantastic,  but  they  represent  human  feelings  and  portray 
real  life.  They  do  not  generalize;  they  show  their  characters 
without  and  within.  Some  of  these  characters  are  grotesque 
and  terrible;  others,  are  sublime  and  beautiful.  And  if  Victor 
Hugo  was  right  we  find  here  in  Perrault  the  beginning  of  romanti- 
cism itself.  For  it  was  Hugo  who  believed  that  the  introduction 

of  the  grotesque  in  literature  was  the  point  of  cleavage  between 

3 

the  classic  and  the  romantic  schools.  The  Blue  Beard  of  perrault 
is  no  more  impossible  than  is  Iago,  or  Richard  III  of  Shakespeare; 
nor  is  Sleeping  Beauty  more  sublime  than  Desdemona  or  Ophelia. 

All  are  creatures  of  the  imagination,  and  if  we  grant  Shakespeare 
a place  among  the  romanticists  certainly  Perrault  may  occupy 
a place  beside  him.  The  women  in  ”Les  Contes”,  too,  occupy  a 
more  prominent  place  than  the  classicist  would  have  given  them. 
Boileau  and  Perrault,  we  remember,  had  disagreed  in  their  ideas 
of  women,  and  Perrault  with  his  "Apologie  des  Femmes”  had  announc- 
ed himself  their  champion  following  the  publication  of  the 
"Satire  sur  Femmes”  of  Boileau.  If  there  was  strategy  in  this 
move  of  Perrault  it  was  well  rewarded,  for  the  women  flocked  to 

1.  Petit  de  Julleville;  Histoire  de  la  Langue  et  de  la  Litt.  Fran. 

p . 586 

8.  Deschanel,  E. ;LeRomant isme  des  Classiques,  p;  287 
3.  Hugo,  V.;  Le  Preface  de  Cromwell;  Oeuvres  Vol.24,  p.  17 


* i- 


. 


50. 

his  side  in  his  quarrel  with  the  Ancients.  But  whatever  his 
motives  in  defending  the  women  against  the  satires  of  Boileau, 
whether  to  strengthen  his  own  following  or  to  antagonize  his 
adversary,  one  can  hardly  ascribe  a similar  motive  to  his  treat- 
ment of  women  in  nLes  Contes”;  for  the  quarrel  had  passed  into 
history,  and  Perrault  had  settled  down  to  a peaceful  home  life 
before  the  ”Contes”  appeared.  Besides  all  this  the  role  of  his 
women  characters  is  too  natural  for  one  to  believe  that  it  is 
forced.  One  or  two  other  romantic  features  of  ”Les  Contes  des 
Fees”  we  must  not  overlook.  It  is  in  these  stories  that  Perrault 

paints  nature  as  he  does  not  paint  it  in  his  poetry,  and  one 

1 

sees  in  these  pictures  the  author Ts  own  feeling  for  nature.  It 
is  in  his  ”Riquet  a la  Houpe”  that  one  finds  mingled  the 

/ ft 

grotesque  with  the  idealisme  amoureux  a century  and  a half  before 
the  time  of  Hugo;  and  it  is  here  too  that  is  set  out  the  superior- 
ity of  spirit  over  the  advantages  of  figure,  the  facility  of  the 

2 

heart  in  ambellishing  that  which  it  loves.  How  much  like  Hugo 
it  all  sounds  I Hugo  who  was  so  fond  of  showing  a queen  in  love 
with  a Vfclet,  a princess  infatuated  with  a bandit,  or  of  por- 
traying parental  love  beneath  a distorted  body,  or  a dwarfed 
soul.  That  the  classicists  had  no  use  for  ”Les  Contes”  goes 
without  saying.  Boileau  disdained  them  all,  and  refused  to  ad- 
mit them  a place  in  literature.  Yet  the  Contes  of  Perrault  live 
still,  and  much  of  what  Boileau  did  has  been  forgotten. 

1.  Deschanel,H. ; Le  Romantisme  des  Classiques  p.  309 

2.  Ibid.  p.  310 


51 


XII 

Following  the  reconciliation  between  Perrault  and 

Boileau  peace  reigned  for  a while  in  the  literary  world  of  France 

while  the  war  was  carried  on  in  England;  but  it  recrossed  the 

channel  and  was  resumed  in  France  fifteen  years  after  the  old 

leaders  had  laid  down  their  arms.  But  though  sponsored  by  new 

champions  the  later  phase  of  the  quarrel  amounted  Substantially 

to  the  same  thing  as  that  which  had  engaged  the  two  factions 

1 

between  1687  and  1690.  La  Motte  played  the  role  of  Perrault 

precisely.  Like  Perrault  he  believed  the  doctrine  of  progress, 

and  taught  that' the  human  mind  of  his  day  was  as  capable  as  one 

2 

of  antiquity  of  producing  great  things.  It  was  in  1713  that 
La  Motte  published  his  translation  of  the  Illiad,  and  a very 
queer  Illiad  it  was,  so  far  removed  from  the  original  that  one 
could  no  longer  recognize  Homer  in  it.  La  Motte  took  great 
liberties  with  this  monument  of  antiquity,  for  he  believed  him- 
self justified  in  embellishing  the  beautiful,  in  suppressing 

y 

the  ugly,  in  abreviating,  in  changing/!  general  the  original  so 

long  as  he  effected  improvements  by  these  changes,  Lot  without 

some  scruples  concerning  the  consequences  of  his  rash  act  was 

La  Motte  and  ending  his  translation  he  admitted  the  fact  that  he 

risked  being  called  rash  and  ignorant . His  prophecy  was  soon  to 

be  fulfilled,  for  M^D&cier  immediately  came  forward  to  defend 

3 

the  divine  Homer  against  those  who  turned  him  to  ridicule. 


l.Rigault ,H. ; Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des  Modernes 
2. Ibid.  p.  369  p.269 

3.  Ibid.  p.  374 


52 


Homer  had  been  only  one  phase  of  the  earlier  part  of  the  quarrel, 
but  between  La  Motte  and  MmeDacier  it  narrowed  to  the  Illiad  and 
became  more  violent  than  it  had  been  between  Soileau  and  perrault. 
Mme©a  cier  had  for  a motive  the  defense  of  Homer,  and  the  per- 
secution of  those  who  would  detract  from  his  glory.  She  was 
bitter  in  her  denunciation  of  her  opponents  whom  she  designated 
as  "barbarians  who  had  ravaged  Greece 7 La  Motte,  however,  like 
his  predecessor  was  successful  in  enlisting  for  his  party  the 

U16 

sympathy  of  the  women;  and  soon  after  LI  'Lacier  began  her  elaborate 
defense  of  Homer  the  women  of  the  country  began  imitating  La  Motte. 

The  press, ever  sensitive  to  public  opinion,  came  to  his  defense, 

2 

and  the  Modernesonce  more  triumphed.  It  was  again  the  triumph 
of  progress  over  traditions  as  had  happened  in  the  early  part 
of  the  quarrel,  and  as  happened  again  in  the  nineteenth  century. 


XIII 


The  romanticists  of  the  nineteenth  century  refused 
to  concede  that  they  were  foreigners  on  French  soil,  or  that  they 
were  innovators  in  the  revolutions  which  they  proposed,  on  the 
contrary  they  established  for  themselves  tradition  and  went  back  to 
the  pleiade  to  find  ancestors  for  the  Cenacle.  Against  Boileau 
they  protested  as  strongly  as  the  fclodern&s of  the  seventeenth 


1.  Abry,  Audic,  Crouzet ; Hist oire  lllus.de  la  Litterature  Franqaise 

✓ p.  305 

2.  Harriot,  3.;  Precis  do  I’Histoiro  de3  Lettres  Franjaises  p.  557 

3..  Albert,  Paul;  La  Litterature  Franjaise  hu  XIXe  jiecle  p.  24 


53 


1 

century  bad.  done, for  Boileau's  theory  was  diametrically  opposed 
to  those  sources  from  which  the  romanticist  drew  his  inspira- 
tion. Romantic  poetry  was  inspired  by  three  forces,  God,  nature 
and  humanity*  Now  the  seventeenth  century  with  its  cold  formal- 
ism had  almost  succeeded  in  banishing  God  from  art,  and  especially 
from  poetry.  She  classicists  drew  their  inspiration  from 
the  gods  of  paganism  who  fought,  and  argued,  and  contended  with 
man,  but  who  offered  no  consolation  to  the  weary,  struggling 
soul.  But  the  poets  of  antiquity  had  found  a place  in  their 
literature  for  these  gods,  and  the  later  day  classicists 
frowned  upon  any  effort  to  replace  them  by  the  Christian  Deity* 

And  so  it  was  that  Desmarets,  and  Perrault  brought  ridicule 
upon  themselves , and  scorn  upon  their  work  when  they  attempted 
to  establish  Christianity  as  an  inspiring  force  in  poetry.  It 
is  not  strange  that  these  classicists  should  have  found  themselves 
opposed  by  the  romanticists.  And  the  nineteenth  century 
classicists  protested  against  romanticism  just  as  the  Ancients 
had  protested  against  Perrault,  and  just  as  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury had  protested  against  Diderot  and  Rousseau.  These  men  were 

2 

all"dangerous  spirits"  because  they  predicted  and  advocated 
certain  literary  changes.  If  the  wild  verses  of  romanticism  con- 
stituted poetry  said  the  classicist  then  Boileau  was  wrong  to  say 

1. Pr.  Arno  GeiBler;  Die  Theorien  Boileaus  p.  2 
Lanson,  G,;  Boileau  p.  202 

2.  Albert,  P. ; La  Litterature  Pranpaise  au  XIXe  Siecle  p.  25. 


54 


"Rien  n’est  beau  que  le  vrai 


1 

Que  toujours  le  bon  sens  s'accorde  avec  la  rimei’ 

And  so  we  say  that  many  of  the  grievances  agitated  between  the 

romanticist  and  the  classicist  had  already  been  fought  out 

between  the  Ancients  and  the  Moderns  in  this  quarrel  in  the 

seventeenth  century, 

What  then  are  the  kindred  points  between  these  two 
revolutions,  between  the  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des  Modernes, 

and  the  Classicist-Romanticist  battle?  In  the  first  place  both 

2 

quarrels  represented  "une  explosion  de  jeneusse",  a revolt  against 

the  rules  fixed  by  tradition;  and  both  rebel  parties  demanded 

liberalism  in  art*  Modernes  and  romanticists  alike  thought 

themselves  cramped  by  the  inflexible  rules  of  classical  syntax, 

and  clamored  for  a freer  vehicle  of  expression.  Between  the  two 

revolting  parties  there  was  a common  dislike  of  imitations,  and 

a sympathetic  conception  of  nature  which  led  them  to  copy  her 

directly  instead  of  accepting  the  impressions  of  a classic  model; 

and  these  same  parties  turned  from  the  pagan  gods  of  antiquity 

and  sought  inspiration,  in  the  newer  philosophy  of  Christianity. 

Through  the  innovations  of  Perrault  and  his  following  the  way 

was  opened  for  the  alliance  of  genres,  for  the  mingling  of  comedy 

and  tragedy  v/hich  both  Musset  and  Hugo  recognized  as  an  essential 

4 

characteristic  of  romanticism.  And  above  all  there  was  with  the 


1.  Albert,  Paul;  La  Litterature  Franpaise  au  XIX  Siecle  p.  45. 

/ e n. 

2.  Albert,  p.;La  Litterature  Franjsaise  au  XIX  Siecle  p.  22. 

3 “Sctiint z and  Xing, 17th  Century  Readings,p.ll8  — ,rLes  Paralleles" 
•Davies,  T.  R.;French  Romanticism,  y,  24 


» 


/ 


t 


♦ 


f 


< 


i J 


u 


55 


Mod  ernes  and  the  romanticist  the  common  belief  in  ITperf  ectibilite", 
perfectibility  in  all  forms  of  art,  suggested  by  perrault  in 
"Les  Paralleles" , and  preached  boldly  by  Mmede  Stael  at  the 
dawn  of  the  romantic  period. 

Modernes  and  romanticists  were  alike , innovators  and 
revolutionists  in  t.heir  respective  centuries.  Revolutionary 
they  were  in  their  antagonism  towards  the  dogma  and  restraint 
of  classic  tradition;  and  innovative  they  were  in  their  intro- 
duction of  new  ideas,  ideas  of  Christian  inspiration.  , of  cos- 
mopolitanism, of  freer  verse  form  , of  the  mingling  of  genres, 
and  of  political  revolution*  .*11  in  all.  Moderns  against  Ancien, 
or  romanticist  against  classicist,  the  question  resolves  itself 
into  one  of  progress  ;and,, it  is.,  the  question  that  is  ever  on. 

In  religion,  in  politics,  in  literature , when  a change  is  pro- 
posed tradition  stands  firm,  and  we  see  conservatism  arrayed 
against  progress. 

We  have  not  tried  to  prove  the  Modernes  romanticists 

in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word.  The  pure  romanticist  came  as 

a result  of  a century  and  a half  more  of  growth  in  all  forms  of 

art.  We  have  attempted  to  indicate  a few  of  the  sympathetic 

features  between  these  two  parties;  and  to  show  Perrault  a pioneer 

me 

in  the  field  made  famous  by  Victor  Hugo  and  Lamartine,  by  M de 
Stae'l  and  Jean- Jacques  Rousseau;  and  to  suggest  that  Perrault,  and 
La  Motte,  and  Fontenelle  blazed  a bit  of  the  trail  which  was  to 
lead  these  later  spirits  into  the  heart  of  romanticism. 


(.  ' 


i : • r , / ' , 


’»  I ‘ *(/.» 


I 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Abry, Audio ,Crouzet;  Histoire  Illustree  de  la  Litterature  Franpaise 

Paris,  1912,  Henri  Didier 

/ A \ 

Albert, Paul;  La  litterature  Franpaise  au  XVII  Siecle 

Paris, 1909,  Hachette  et  Cirt 

Albert,  Paul;  La  Litterature  Franpaise  au  XIXP. Siecle 

Paris,  1901,  Hachette  at  C1* 

Babbit,  Irving;  Contemporary  Literature 

Course  given  at  Radcliffe  College  1922 

/ 

Bailly,  Auguste;  L* Boole  Classique  Franpaise 

Paris,  Librairie  Armand  Colin 

Boileau,  Nicolas;  Oeuvres 

Paris, 1864,  Firmin  Didot  Preres 

Boileau,  Nicolas;  Oeuvres  v 

Paris,  1872,  Gamier  Preres 

N ' 

Brunetiere,  Ferdinand;  L* Evolution  des  Genres 

Paris,  1916,  Hachette  et  C1* 

\ * 

Brunetiere,  Ferdinand;  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Franpaise 

Paris,  Librairie  Ch.  Delagrave 

Chiorini,  Maria;  Un  Adversaire  de  L' Influence  Italienne  en  Prance 

Imola,  1911,  Paola  Galeati 

/ 

Deschanel,  Pmil;  Le  Romantisme  des  Classiques 

Paris,  1891,  Caiman  Levy 

Doumic , R. ; Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Franpaise 

Paris,  1911,  Librairie  Classique  Paul  Delaplane 

Dupuy,  A.;  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Franpaise  au  XVII*  Siecle 

Paris,  1892,  Rrnest  Leroux 

/ 

Duval,  Josephine;  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Franpaise 

Boston,  1893,  D.C.  Heath  & Co. 

Faguet,  Fmile;  Propos  Litterature  , x 

Paris,  1904,  Societe  Franpaise  d'Imprimerie 
et  de  Librairie 


f 


, 


< 


f ' 


• 

t 

V 

V 

« * 

. 

II 


Faguet,  Emile;  XVIleSiecle  Etudes  Li'teraires  . 

Paris,  1894,  Lecbne,  Oudin  et  G1 

Penelon;  . ; L'Rducation  des  Pilles,  Oeuvres  de  Pension,  Vol.  2. 

Paris,  1870,  pirmin  Didot  Preres,  pils  et  Cie 

Pinch  and  Peers;  The  Origin  of  French  Romanticism 

London,  1920,  Constable  and  Go,  L.  T.  L. 

/ / / 

Fleury,  Jean;  Histoire  Elementaire  de  la  Litterature  Pranpaise 

Paris,  1901,  Plon-Hourrit  et  Gie 

Pontenelle,  Bernard  le  Bovier  de; Digressions  sur  les  Anciens  et 
les  Mod erne§, Oeuvres,  Yol.  4 

Paris,  1758,  B,  Brunet 

GeiBler,  Pr,  Arno;  Die  Theorien  Boileaus 

Leipzig,  1909,  Universitat 

Gillot , Hubert ; La  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des  Modernes 

Paris,  1914,  Edouard  Champion 

/ ,, 

Herriot,  Edouard;  Precis  de  I’Histoire  des  Lettres  Pranpaises 

Paris,  R,  Rieder  et  Cie 

Hugo,  Victor;  Oeuvres,  Yol. 24 

Paris,  J.  Hetzel  et  Cie 

La  Croix,  Paul;  Memoires  de  Charles  Perrault 

Paris,  1878,  Librairie  des  Bibliophiles 

Lamartine,  Alphonse  prat;  Oeuvres  Completes,  Yol.  1 

Paris,  1860,  Chez  1’ Auteur 

Lanson,  Gustave;  Boileau 

Paris,  1900,  Librairie  Hachette  et  Cie 

Lanson,  Gustave;  Choix  de  Lettres  de  XVIIQSiecle 

Paris,  1906,  Hachette  et  Cle 

Lanson,  Gustave;  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Fvanqaise 

Paris,  1908,  Hachette  et  Cie 

Michaut,  Gustave;  pages  de  Critique  et  d'Histoire  Litteraire 

Paris,  1910,  Pontemoing  et  Cie 

Morillot,  p.;  Boileau 

Paris,  1697,  Societe  Prancaise  d'imprimerie 
et  de  librairie 

Pellissier,  Georges;  Histoire  de  la  Litterature  Frangaise 

Paris,  1918,  Librairie  Delagrave 


f 


* n*l! 


f 


T 


f 


f r 


< 


t 


f 


t 


< 


Ill 


Pellissier,  Georges;  Le  Realisme  du  Romantisme 

Paris,  1912,  Librairie  Hachette  et  Cle 

Petit  de  Juleville;  Histoire  de  la  Langue  et  de  la  Litterature 
Fran^aise  . 

Paris,  1896,  Armand  Colin  et  C1 

Pletscher,  Theodore;  Pie  Marchen  Charles  Perrault 

Berlin,  1906,  Mayer  und  Miller 

Rigault,  H. ; Histoire  de  la  Querelle  des  Anciens  et  des  Modernes 

Paris,  1856,  Librairie  de  L.  Hachette  et  Cie 

Rigault,  H. ; Oeuvres  Completes,  Vol.  1 

Paris, 1859,  Hachette  et  Cle 

Sainte-Beuve,  C.  A.;  Causeries  du  Lundi 

Paris, Gamier  Freres 

Sainte-Beuve,  C.  A.;  Les  Houveaux  Lundis 

Paris,  1885,  Caiman  Levy 

Schintz  and  King;  Seventeenth  Century  French  Readings 

Hew  York,  Henry  Holt  and  Co. 

Sorel,  Albert;  Mmede  Sta&l 

Paris, 1907,  Hachette  et  Cle 

St endahl (Henri  3eyle ) ; Racine  et  Shakspeare 

Paris,  Calmann-Levy 

Stewart  and  Tilley;  Romantic  Movement  in  French  Literature 

Cambridge, 1913,  University  press 

Strachey,  G.L.;  Landmarks  in  French  Literature 

He w York,  1912,  Henry  Holt  and  Co. 

Text e, Joseph;  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau  et  les  Origines  du  Cosmopoli- 
tisme  Xlttpraire 

Paris, 1895,  Hachette  et  C 

bright,  C.  H.  Conrad;  A History  of  French  Literature 

New  York,  1912,  Oxford  University  Press, 
American  Branch 


